■ 

- 

■ 

- 


' 


- 

! 


: 


. 


- 
...  .     . 

I. 
-    -     -         .  .  ...  .... 

: 
...... 

...... 

- 

- 

.... 

■ 




£3 

ra 

! 

jt> 

a. 

.jgr 

<« 

1c 

Q. 

* 

0> 

.^^ 

'J= 

•» 

>-9 

Q. 

K 

O 

*» 

„ 

$ 

4^t 

fe 

u 

O 

c 

«- 

O 

t»n 

C\ 

*^ 

&H 

<t 

t-2 
<; 

J5 

~a> 

3 

<S4 

K 

s 

.^ 

«*» 

M 

c<3 

>2 

*gS 

PS 

CO 

"Si 

-*•< 
^ 

Pi 

0 

5 

% 

-a 

^ 

(U 

c 

<3 

v* 

a) 

^ 

C/l 

0 

<# 

CL 

5 
^ 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/baptismcovenantfOOwolf 


BAPTISM 


THE  COYEMNT  MB  THE  FAMILY. 


REV.   PHILIPPE  WOLFF, 

LATE   OF   GENEVA,    SWITZERLAND. 


2Eranslatetr  freelg  from  tj)c  jFrencIj  bg  tjje  &utf)or, 


WITH  SOME  ADDITIONS. 


BOSTON: 

CROSBY     AND     NICHOLS, 

117    Washington    Street. 

1862. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1861,  by 
PHILIPPE     WOLFF, 
the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


TJniversity  Press,  Cambridge: 
Stereotyped  and  Printed  by  Welch,  Bigelow,  &  Co. 


PREFACE. 


/"> 


Baptist  principles  have  never  found  a  congenial  soil 
in  France  and  Switzerland,  and  were  discarded  by  the 
martyr  Huguenots.  Of  late,  however,  they  have  met  with 
considerable  favor  among  the  Evangelical  Christians  of 
these  countries,  many  of  whom  have  adopted  them  in  the- 
ory, although  very  few  as  yet  have  carried  them  out  in 
practice.  The  Baptist  doctrine  has  there  had  all  the  ad- 
vantage of  being  a  plausible  novelty,  and  of  meeting  minds 
unprepared  and  untrained  to  oppose  it.  Moreover,  French 
Protestantism  surfers  very  much  from  the  evils  resulting 
from  State  Churchism  and  its  concomitant,  mere  nominal 
Christianity.  To  many  serious  and  influential  Christians 
the  Baptist  principle  appears  the  great  remedy  for  these 
evils,  inasmuch  as  it  seems  to  promote  individual  pro- 
fession. But  they  generally  ignore  the  most  repulsive 
features  of  the  practice  of  Baptists,  and  will  scarcely  credit 
the  rigidity  of  their  sectarian  discipline  nor  the  scenes 
usually  attendant  upon  immersion. 

The  author  of  this  book  has  thought  it  his  duty  to  give 
a  timely  word  of  warning  to  his  French  and  Swiss  breth- 


IV  PKEFACE. 

ren,  for  whom  he  feels  the  greatest  interest  and  attachment, 
and  to  let  them  have  the  benefit  of  his  personal  experience 
in  reference  to  the  Baptist  practice,  of  which  he  has  often 
been  an  eyewitness.  As  will  be  seen,  although  a  very 
decided  Pedobaptist,  he  more  than  once  censures  some 
of  the  doctrines  and  arguments  usually  set  up  in  the  de- 
fence of  infant  baptism.  But  if  he  has  sometimes  left  the 
beaten  track  and  brought  forward  a  new  system  of  evi- 
dence, he  has  done  it  solely  in  the  interest  of  truth,  and 
for  this  very  reason  will  be  happy  to  have  his  views 
fairly  criticised,  and  even  solidly  refuted,  if  by  this  more 
light  can  be  thrown  upon  the  question  of  Baptism.  It  is 
principally  in  the  hope  of  furthering  such  a  result,  that 
this  translation  from  the  French  has  been  undertaken. 
The  manner  of  the  author  will  probably  appear  to  some 
as  rather  abrupt  and  sarcastic ;  but  let  any  judgment  be 
passed  on  the  form,  provided  the  substance  be  grappled 
with.  He  freely  acknowledges  that  he  did  not  make  the 
futile  attempt  of  conciliating  Baptists  by  soft  words  and 
honeyed  arguments ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  has  spoken 
out  all  his  mind  frankly,  and  sometimes  reflected  severely 
upon  them  as  a  whole ;  but  even  while  doing  this,  he  has 
carefully  abstained  from  all  personality.  He  knows  that 
he  can  never  obtain  forgiveness  for  writing  such  a  book 
from  that  class  of  people  to  whom  their  peculiar  views  are 
like  another  Gospel,  the  truth  of  which  is  neither  to  be 
questioned  nor  investigated.  But  this  he  knew  before  he 
took  the  pen,  and  made  up  his  mind  long  since  to  bear 


PREFACE.  V 

quietly  any  amount  of  abuse  for  the  sake  of  the  cause. 
From  this  there  can  he  no  escape,  for  the  honest  Spur- 
geon  himself,  in  a  recent  letter,  after  lamenting  the  dan- 
gerous tendencies  evinced  by  all  the  Baptist  organs  of 
Great  Britain,  adds:  "Abuse,  misrepresentation,  slander, 
await  any  man  who  shall  thrust  his  arm  into  this  hornets' 
nest ;  but  it  must  be  done,  and  happy  will  he  be  who 
shall  be  called  to  do  it!" 

This  work  has  been  written  so  as  to  be  readable,  not 
only  by  theologians  and  scholars,  but  also  by  intelligent 
laymen,  and  this  is  why  so  few  references  are  made  to  the 
individual  opinions  and  arguments  of  other  writers.  If, 
notwithstanding  the  usual  aridity  of  the  subject,  it  can  be 
read  without  too  much  fatigue,  and  if  it  suggests  to  the 
reader  some  new  points  of  view,  either  for  approbation  or 
for  opposition,  the  highest  expectation  of  the  author  will 
be  fulfilled. 

Montreal,  July  25,  1861. 


C  ONTENTS 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE    TWO    BAPTISMS. 

Sect.  Page 

1.  The  Starting-Point  of  the  Question  in  the  Gospel         .  .      1 

2.  Contrast  of  the  Two  Baptisms 2 

3.  Danger  which  there  is  of  confounding  the  Two  Baptisms  .      4 

4.  Four  Figures  of  Spiritual  Baptism 6 

5.  To  believe  and  to  be  baptized  the  two  Conditions  of  Sal- 

vation   9 

6.  Baptism  and  Baptisms 12 

7.  "  The  Figure  that  saves  " 14 

8.  Some  Passages  made  clear  by  a  double  Baptism   .        .        .18 

CHAPTER    II. 

THE  FATHERS  OP  THE  CHURCH. 

9.  The  Proofs  drawn  from  the  Fathers  are  not  decisive  .         20 

10.  The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  would  be  in  Favor  of  Pedo- 

baptism 23 

11.  The  first  Baptist,  Tertullian,  was  not  one       .        .  .     24 

12.  The  Baptist  Practice  has  sprung  up  as  a  Development  of 

Romanism 28 

CHAPTER   III. 

IMMERSION. 

13.  The  Rite  of  Immersion  is  practised  in  the  most  corrupt 

Churches 30 

14.  Immersion  is  deemed  essential  by  the  Baptists  .        .        .        31 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

15.  The  Practice  of  Immersion  cannot  be  altered  if  Apostolical  33 

16.  Baptize  is  a  Greek  Word,  Anglicized,  but  not  translated   .  34 

17.  The  New  Baptist  Bible 35 

18.  To  immerse  means  to  drown 38 

19.  Classical  Meaning  of  the  Word  Baptize         .        .         .         .41 

20.  Meaning  of  Baptize  in  the  Septuagint        ....  44 

21.  What  is  required  for  a  Proof  that  Immersion  is  in  the  New 

Testament 48 

22.  The  pretended  diverse  Immersions 50 

23.  The  Immersion  of  the  Pharisees 51 

24.  John  the  Baptist  has  neither  prescribed  nor  described  the 

Mode  of  Baptism 53 

25.  The  Waters  of  Enon 55 

26.  A  Half-Million  baptized  by  John 56 

27.  More  than  Herculean  Labor  of  the  Forerunner     .         .        .57 

28.  Impossible  Scene  of  the  Three  Thousand  immersed           .  60 

29.  The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch  was  not  an  Immersion      .        .  62 

30.  The  Fishes  of  Tertullian 70 

31.  Baptist  Immersion  is  a  Parody  of  the  Burial  of  Jesus  Christ  70 

32.  Baptism  as  a  Burial  is  an  Anachronism    ....  74 

33.  Immersion  is  a  difficult,  complicated,  and  expensive  Cere- 

mony, which  leads  to  Ridicule  and  excludes  Edification  75 

34.  The  Ceremony  is  sensual  and  carnal,  dangerous  to  Health 

and  even  a  Peril  to  Life 81 

35.  Baptism  by  Immersion  is  an  old  Heathen  Practice        .        .  85 

36.  The  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  Aspersion       .        .  88 

37.  While  the  Ordinances  of  the  Gospel  belong  to  all,  Immer- 

sion is  to  many  absolutely  and  forever  impossible       .  90 

38.  Immersion  is  an  Indecency  and  even  a  Blasphemy        .        .  91 

39.  Immersion  is  in  Scripture  the  Symbol  of  the  Divine  Curse  93 

CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 

40.  The  Observation  of  Facts  is  the  Best  Method  to  follow     .  97 

41.  Presumption  that  the  Baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the  Apos- 

tles form  but  one 98 

42.  The  Pretended  Anabaptism  of  Paul  towards  Certain  Disci- 

ples of  John 100 


CONTENTS.  IX 

43.  The  Spiritual  Import  of  Baptism  is  susceptible,  in  the  New 

Testament,  of  a  Gradual  and  Historical  Development      105 

44.  The  whole  History  of  Baptism,  from  John  the  Baptist  to 

Paul,  shows  its  Unity  and  Identity        .         .        .        .108 

CHAPTER    V. 

BAPTISM  BEFORE   FAITH. 

45.  Necessity  of  a  Progress  of  both  Parties  in  the  Question  of 

Baptism 114 

46.  The  only  Three  Opinions  possible  on  the  Relation  of  Bap- 

tism to  Faith 115 

47.  The  Baptism  of  John  was  not  a  Baptism  of  Believers  but  of 

the  Unconverted 118 

48.  The  Baptized  of  John  gave  only  an  External  Assent  to  his 

Preaching 119 

49.  Jesus  receives  the  Baptism  of  Water  before  that  of  the 

Holy  Ghost 121 

50.  The  Multitudinous  Baptisms  of  Jesus  Christ  .         .         .         124 

5 1 .  The  Three  Thousand  baptized  after  Pentecost  were  of  the 

Called,  and  not  of  the  Chosen 126 

52.  Mass  Baptism  of  Unconverted  Samaritans  who  believe,  but 

not  unto  Salvation 130 

53.  The  Condition  exacted  at  the  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch  is 

not  Authentic 132 

54.  There  is  an  Assenting  Faith  and  a  Justifying  Faith ;  and 

the  Eunuch  believes  as  Simon  Magus  believed  .         .         134 

55.  The  First  Baptism  of  a  Heathen  is  performed  without  Wit- 

nesses, with  Hesitancy  but  also  with  Precipitation         .     135 

56.  The  First  Public  Baptism  of  a  Heathen  is  that  of  Corne- 

lius ;  here  is  again  some  Hesitation  followed  by  Precipi- 
tation     137 

57.  Paul,  Lydia,  the  Jailer,  and  others  are  baptized  in  great 

Haste  upon  the  first  Assent  given  to  the  Gospel,  and 

are  taught  only  after  being  baptized  .         .        .         .         141 

58.  Twelve  Ignorant  Men  baptized  in  Haste  at  the  Close  of  a 

Conversation 145 

59.  A  Leading  Object  of  Baptism  was  to  bring  the  Receiver  to 

believe  in  Jesus  Christ 146 


X  CONTENTS. 

60.  Scripture  knows  neither  Delay,  nor  Preparation,  nor  Exami- 

nation, nor  Discipline  in  reference  to  Baptism  .         .        147 

61.  The  Gospel  places  Baptism  always  before,  and  the  Baptists 

always  after,  Faith ;  it  is  the  most  flagrant  Contradic- 
tion imaginable 148 

62.  Dangerous  Semi-Anabaptism  of  Pedobaptists.    Adults  and 

Children  must  receive  the  same  Baptism  .        .        .        1 50 

63.  Immersion  implies  Baptism  before  Faith     ....     153 

64.  Baptists  themselves  confer  Baptism  before  Faith  and  ac- 

knowledge officially  and  publicly  its  Validity       .        .154 

CHAPTER    VI. 
THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN   TO  THE  APOSTLES  BY  JESUS  CHRIST. 

65.  There  is  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  but  a  single 

and  unique  Command  to  Baptize      .         .        .        .         157 

66.  The  Command  having  been  given  to  the  Eleven  Apostles 

alone,  and  not  transferred  by  them  to  others,  points  to 
the  Old  Testament  for  Scriptural  Authority  to  per- 
form the  Ordinance 159 

67.  The  Commission  refers  also  to  the  Old  Testament  for  the 

External  Mode  of  Baptism  and  its  Symbolical  Meaning    1 60 

68.  The  Command  is  not  general;  refers  only  to  the  Baptism 

of  Heathen,  and  not  to  that  of  the  People  of  God    .        162 

69.  The  Command  consists  in  making  Disciples  of  the  Heathen, 

and  in  baptizing  them  previous  to  teaching  them  .         .163 

70.  Every  Brother  is  a  Disciple,  but  every  Disciple  is  not  a 

Brother 165 

71.  The  Baptists  suppress  the  Disciples 169 

72.  One  can  believe  and  be  baptized  with  Water  without  being 

saved 170 

73.  A  Nation  is  not  a  Nation  without  the  Children,  and  the 

Baptism  of  Adults  is  not  enjoined  in  any  way  more 
than  that  of  Infants 171 

74.  The  Baptism  of  Women  is  merely  implied,  but  not  ex- 

pressly commanded 172 

75.  Baptists  suppress  the  Half  of  the  Command  on  Baptism, 

just  as  the  Priests  the  Half  of  that  on  the  Holy  Sup- 
per.   But  Jesus  Christ  commands  to  baptize  Children      175 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTEE    VII. 

THE  ANTECEDENTS  OF   EVANGELICAL  BAPTISM. 

76.  The  New  Testament  is  incomplete  in  Reference  to  Baptism     177 

77.  There   are   Three  Alternatives :    1.  Reject  Baptism   alto- 

gether.   2.  Construct  it  on  Tradition  and  Fancy.    3. 
Connect  it  with  the  Old  Testament  .        .        .        .        179 

CHAPTER    VIII. 

PURIFICATION   AND   THE  BAPTISMS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

78.  The  Baptism  of  Water  is  Purification  Symbolical  and  Re- 

ligious         183 

79.  The  Baptism  of  a  whole  Nation  before  Sinai       .        .        .185 

80.  The  Initiating  Baptism  of  the  Priesthood         .        .        .         187 

81.  The  Baptism  by  Sprinkling  in  Purification  for  Sin     .         .     188 

82.  In  the  Days  of  Jesus  Christ  a  Baptist  would  not  have  been 

understood,  and  would  have  passed  for  a  Monomaniac  190 

83.  The  Baptism  of  the  Gospel  is  prepared  through  the  Prophets  191 

84.  John  the  Baptist  was  himself  baptized,  and  that  by  Sprinkling  1 9 1 

85.  John  the  Baptist  innovates  as  to  Baptism,  by  restricting  the 

External  Form  and  extending  the  Spiritual  Meaning  .     192 

86.  The  Baptism  of  the  Death  of  Christ  —  the  Consequence 

and  the  Complement  of  the  Baptism  of  Water    .        .195 

87.  Who  are  those  who  are  baptized  for  the  Dead  .        .         196 

CHAPTER   IX. 

BAPTISM,   THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  FAMILY. 

88.  The  Question  of  Baptism  ought  not  to  become  complicated 

with  that  of  the  Church,  but  should  remain  Distinct 
and  Independent 199 

89.  A  Church  does  not  baptize,  and  Baptism  does  not  intro- 

duce into  a  Church 201 

90.  Baptism  is  above  all  the  Institution  of  the  Christian  Family    203 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    X. 

THE  NATURE  OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS. 

91.  Every  Covenant  is  necessarily  confirmed  by  a  Seal,  an 

Oath,  or  some  Symbolical  Sign 205 

92.  Tbe  Three  Covenants  of  the  Lord,  and  their  Signs ;  Bap- 

tists arbitrarily  limit  the  Third        ....        207 

93.  The  First  Covenant  is  concluded  with  Noah,  but  not  with- 

out the  Participation  of  his  Children  ....     208 

94.  The  Second  Covenant  is  made  with  Abraham  and  his 

Children.  As  the  Third  does  not  annul  the  other 
Two,  its  Sign  alone  suffices  for  and  confirms  all  Three    209 

95.  The  Alliance  made  with  Abraham  is  perpetual,  and  is 

neither  abrogated  nor  abridged  by  a  subsequent 
Alliance 210 

96.  The  Second  Covenant,  far  from  being  Carnal,  is  eminently 

Spiritual,  the  Promise  of  Posterity  signed  through 
Circumcision  having  Reference  to  Christ    .         .         .212 

97.  Circumcision  was  an  immense  Privilege, — the  Spiritual 

Bond  which  united  all  the  Members  of  the  Family  to 
God  and  to  one  another 214 

98.  It  is  tantamount  to  denying  Scripture  and  insulting  God 

to  assert  that  the  New  Covenant  has  lessened  or  sup- 
pressed the  Privileges  of  the  Old  one  towards  any 
Portion  of  the  Family 216 

99.  A  Sign  of  Covenant  which  excludes  the  Family  is  not 

valid,  and  the  Baptism  of  a  Parent  without  that  of 

his  Children  is  incomplete  and  of  no  Value    .        .        218 

100.  The  Anger  of  the  Lord  is  kindled  against  the  Baptist 

Practice  of  Moses 220 

CHAPTER   XI. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  COVENANT  AND  OF  ITS  SIGN  FROM  ABRAHAM 
TO  CHRIST. 

101.  The  Circumcision  of  Ishmael  confers  upon  him  none  but 

Spiritual  Privileges 223 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

102.  The  General  Profanation  of  the  Rite  at  Sichera  was  never 

used  as  an  Argument  against  the  Institution       .        .     224 

103.  Children  and  Infants  compelled  to  contract  the  Covenant       225 

104.  Moses  does  not  prescribe  Circumcision,  but  only  enhances 

its  Spirituality 226 

105.  Moses  inflicts  upon  the  People  Forty  Years  of  Baptist 

Practice  as  a  Punishment  for  Unfaithful  Parents         .     226 

106.  Joshua  renews  the  Covenant  even  with  Infants,  and  pro- 

tests against  the  Baptist  Practice.    Josiah  follows  his 
Example 228 

CHAPTER    XII. 

BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED  FOR  CIRCUMCISION. 

107.  Circumcision  is  practised  jointly  with  Baptism  during  the 

whole  Apostolical  Age 231 

108.  The  Old  Bridge  and  the  New  Bridge,  with  the  Apocryphal 

Sign-board  of  the  Baptists 233 

109.  Baptism  is  neither  greater  nor  less  than  Circumcision     .        236 

110.  The  Identity  of  Circumcision  and  Baptism  declared  in 

Scripture 237 

111.  The  Children  of  a  Christian  Parent  being  declared  Holy, 

should  receive  the  Sign  of  Holiness  .         .         .        239 

112.  The  Identity  of  the  two  Institutions  proved  by  the  Identity 

of  their  essential  Features 241 

113.  Twenty  Years  after  the  Death  of  Christ  the  Council  of 

Jerusalem  decides  for  the  first  time  that  Baptism  will 

be  held  sufficient  without  Circumcision    .        .        .        242 

114.  Circumcision  remains  optional  for  baptized  Gentiles  .        .    243 

115.  All  the   Children  of    Church-members  were  necessarily 

either  Circumcised  or  Baptized 245 

116.  Infant  Baptism  was  indispensable  to  the  Unity  of  the  Apos- 

tolic Church.     The  Baptist  Practice  would  have  put 
out  Baptism  and  perpetuated  Circumcision  .        .    247 

CHAPTER    XIII. 
INFANT  BAPTISM   CONFIRMED. 

1 17.  All  the  Baptismal  Evidence  of  Scripture  converges  towards 

Infant  Baptism 249 

b 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

118.  The  great  Sophism,  that  because  Infants  cannot  believe, 

they  must  not  be  Baptized,  brought  under  the  Test 

of  Logic 250 

119.  One  Million  of  Children  baptized  with  the  Water  of  the 

Eed  Sea  by  the  Lord  himself 254 

120.  The  Laying  on  of  Hands,  conferred  by  the  Lord  upon 

Little  Children,  implies  much  more  than  Baptism       .     256 

121.  A  great  Baptist  Miracle  !     There  was  not  a  single  little 

Child  in  all  the  Families  baptized  in  the  Days  of  the 

Apostles 258 

1 22.  Some  Indiscreet  Questions  addressed  to  Baptists   .         .  263 

123.  In  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  elsewhere,  the  Naturalization  166 

of  a  Parent  always  includes  that  of  the  Children        .    266 

124.  Infants  did  not  eat  the  Passover  any  more  than  they  now 

participate  in  the  Communion,  and  these  two  Institu- 
tions correspond  to  each  other  just  as  Baptism  and 
Circumcision 268 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM. 

125.  Vagueness,  Diversity,  and  Contradictions  amongst  both 

Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  as  to  the  Spiritual  Value 

of  Baptism 272 

126.  The  only  Escape  from  Uncertainty  offered  by  the  Bible  is 

to  connect  Baptism  with  Circumcision     .        .        .         275 

127.  The  Grace  of  Covenant  imparted  through  Baptism    .        .    277 

128.  The  Baptism  of  the  whole  Family  has  most  important 

Results  upon  the  Education  of  Children  .        .         279 

129.  It  is  False  that  a  Child  has  no  Religion     ....    281 

1 30.  The  Faith  of  Parents  is  efficacious  towards  their  Children, 

and  by  Baptism  is  confirmed  and  receives  a  determi- 
nate Impulse 282 

131.  Whatever  Exertions  are  made  to  smuggle  Children  into 

the  Covenant,  they  are  never  deprived  of  Baptism 
with  perfect  Impunity 284 

132.  God  takes  Baptist  Parents  at  their  Word,  and  their  Chil- 

dren do  the  same 286 


CONTENTS.  XV 

133.  By  calling  Baptism  a  Righteousness,  the  Lord  places  it  on 

a  Level  with  the  Ceremonies  of  Purification  in  the 
Old  Testament 288 

134.  The  Baptism  of  Fire  is  not  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  is 

the  Baptism  of  Hell 290 

135.  The  Baptism  of  the  Gospel  is  intended  to  prepare  the  Way 

for  the  Coming  of  the  Lord,  and,  as  such,  suits  Infants 
better  than  any  other  Class 293 

136.  The  Gospel  knows  no  other  Baptism  than  that  of  the 

Called,  who  have  not  yet  obtained  the  Remission  of 
Sins 295 

137.  No  Theory  of  Baptism  is  true  unless  it  fully  accounts  for 

the  Haste  and  Precipitancy  of  the  Apostles  to  confer  it    296 

138.  The  Haste  to  baptize  finds  its  Analogy  and  its  Justifica- 

tion in  the  Enlistment  of  the  Soldier  by  the  Recruiter    300 

139.  This  Haste  to  enlist  the  Unconverted  is  an  essential  Fea- 

ture of  Baptism,  and  forms  just  the  Reverse  of  the 
Baptist  Practice 302 

140.  The  Grace  of  Calling  conferred  by  Baptism  •        .        .        303 

141.  Although  the  Time  most  propitious  to  Baptism  is  before 

Faith,  it  had  better  be  received  late  than  never    .        .    305 

142.  It  is  as  a  Sign  of  the  Future,  and  the  Seal  of  a  Covenant, 

that  Baptism  is  conferred  but  once      ....    306 

143.  In  the  Case  of  a  doubtful  Baptism-  the  Conscience  of  the 

Individual  should  decide  whether  he  be  re-baptized 

or  not 307 

144.  When  the  Unconverted  make  a  Sincere  Profession,  their 

Children  ought  to  be  baptized 309 

145.  The  Custom  of  having  Godfathers  and  Godmothers  is  not 

opposed  to  the  Gospel,  and,  if  well  managed,  may 
offer  great  Advantages  ;  but  the  Rite  of  Confirmation 
impairs  the  Value  of  Infant  Baptism  .        .        .        .311 


CHAPTER   XV. 

BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISIPLINE. 

146.  Slight  Differences  among  Pedobaptists  in  Regard  to  the 

Relation  of  Baptism  to  Admission  to  the  Church       .    315 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

147.  Baptist  Multitudinism  is  more  dangerous  to  Piety  than 

any  other 316 

148.  Baptists  aim  at  a  Medium  between  Fanaticism  and  Incre- 

dulity        319 

149.  The  Remedy  for  Multitudinism  does  not  lie  in  Baptist 

Antinomianism,  but  in  the  Preaching  of  the  Gospel  .    320 

150.  Anabaptism  has  a  regular,  certain,  and  perfectly  logical 

Development,  which   leads   unfailingly  to  the  most 
Sectarian  Bigotry 323 

151.  The  Christian  Heart  in  vain  attempts  a  Compromise  with 

Baptist  Discipline  and  Logic 326 

152.  Baptist  Zealotry  proceeds  from  an  exaggerated  and  false 

Importance  attributed  to  Baptism        ....    328 

153.  Anabaptism  is,  by  its  exclusive  Arrogance,  the  petty  Rival 

of  Popery 329 

154.  The  present  Baptist  Doctrine  and  Practice  date  back  but 

two  Centuries,  and  have  been  fomented  by  the  Jesuits    332 

155.  Why  the  Baptist  Schism  is  the  most  suitable  Expedient 

for  weakening  Evangelical  Churches  ....    336 

156.  The  Baptist  Babel,  with  its  Schisms  of  Schisms,  should 

serve  as  a  Warning  to  Evangelical  Christians     .         .     339 

157.  The  Heaven  of  Baptists  is  a  Sad  Mansion     .         .        .        343 

158.  The  Touchstone  offered  by  Jesus  Christ  to  simple  Chris- 

tians      344 


THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 


CHAPTEE    I 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS. 


§  1.  The  Starting-Point  of  the  Question  in 
the  Gospel.  —  Whenever  the  New  Testament  is 
opened  and  searched  for  its  teachings  on  the  doc- 
trine of  Baptism,  the  eye  is  first  arrested  by  the 
third  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  where  is 
found  the  earliest  mention  of  this  religious  cere- 
mony. John  the  Baptist  is  introduced  on  the  scene 
as  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  and  we  are  told 
that  he  both  preaches  and  baptizes.  Then  follows 
immediately  a  declaration  on  the  nature  and  object 
of  baptism,  which  is  placed  in  the  mouth  of  the 
prophet  baptizer  himself.  It  is  this  :  "  I  indeed  bap- 
tize you  with  water  unto  repentance  :  but  he  that 
cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I 
am  not  worthy  to  bear  :  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."     (Matt.  iii.  11.) 

This  solemn  declaration  may  well  serve  us  as  a 


2  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

starting-point  in  our  researches  on  baptism,  for  it  is 
the  most  formal  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  deigned 
to  grant  us  on  the  nature  and  the  object  of  this  in- 
stitution, and  He  has  placed  it  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Gospel.  Further  on,  undoubtedly,  in 
the  New  Testament,  there  is  often  mention  made  of 
baptism  as  of  an  established  practice,  and  we  glean 
here  and  there  many  precious  instructions  on  its 
form,  its  symbolical  sense,  and  its  spiritual  effects  ; 
but  nowhere  else  do  we  find  an  official,  positive, 
and  complete  declaration,  such  as  that  which  we  re- 
ceive from  the  mouth  of  John  the  Baptist.  Thus, 
although  its  extreme  conciseness  leaves  much  to 
be  supplied,  it  is,  notwithstanding,  that  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  intention  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  should 
first  of  all  arrest  our  attention  and  direct  our 
earliest  steps  in  the  knowledge  of  all  that  is  im- 
plied by  that  ordinance. 

§  2.  Contrast  of  the  Two  Baptisms. —  The  first 
glance  cast  upon  this  declaration  teaches  us  at 
once  and  clearly  that  there  are  two  baptisms,  — 
the  baptism  of  water  and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  a  very  simple  and  fundamental  division, 
but  one  which  has  unfortunately  been  too  much 
neglected  in  studying  Scripture  on  the  subject  of 
baptism.  The  declaration  of  John  is  immediately 
confirmed  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  by  the  example 


THE  TWO   BAPTISMS.  3 

of  Jesus  Christ  himself,  who  commences  his  min- 
istry by  the  reception  of  a  double  baptism,  first 
that  of  water,  then  afterwards  that  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  fact  of  two  baptisms,  doubly  and 
solemnly  stated  at  the  very  threshold  of  the 
reading  of  the  Gospel,  should  never  be  lost  sight 
of  in  the  examination  of  subsequent  passages  ;  for 
otherwise  we  incur  the  danger  of  raising,  in  ref- 
erence to  this  institution,  an  edifice  of  doctrine 
upon  other  foundations  than  those  which  inspi- 
ration has  laid,  and  we  voluntarily  condemn  our- 
selves to  error  and  to  insolvable  difficulties. 

This  first  and  introductory  declaration  upon  the 
two  baptisms  is  not  only  confirmed  by  the  example 
of  the  Lord,  who  receives  them  both  successively 
in  a  visible  and  striking  manner,  but  still  more  so 
by  his  testimony,  when,  after  his  resurrection  and 
at  the  moment  when  his  disciples  are  about  to 
found  the  Christian  Church,  he  repeats  it  to  them 
in  the  same  terms  as  John  the  Baptist. 

"  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water  ;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence."     (Acts  i.  5.) 

This  "but"  first  in  the  mouth  of  John,  then  after- 
wards in  that  of  the  Lord,  indicates  so  decided  a 
distinction,  that  it  is  equivalent  to  a  contrast  be- 
tween the  two  baptisms. 

Finally,  this  first  positive  teaching  of  Scripture 


4  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

upon  baptism  is  also  the  last  which  we  meet  in 
its  pages.  The  Apostle  Peter,  like  John  the  Bap- 
tist and  like  the  Lord,  wishes  that  we  should  re- 
member that  there  are  two  baptisms,  of  which  one 
is  the  figure  of  the  other,  and  that  the  second, 
whose  nature  is  spiritual,  is  infinitely  superior  to 
the  first:  "The  like  figure  whereunto,  even  baptism, 
doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  (1  Pet.  iii.  21.)  Thus  the  New  Testament 
commences  and  finishes  its  teachings  upon  bap- 
tism by  this  division,  so  simple  and  yet  funda- 
mental, of  a  baptism  of  water  and  a  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  two  explaining  each  other 
as  the  figure  and  the  reality,  and  bound  together, 
but  with  a  certain  contrast,  as  the  form  to  the 
substance,  the  type  to  the  thing  signified. 

§  3.     Danger  which  there  is  of  confounding 

the  Two  Baptisms.  —  It  is  the  baptism  of  water 
which  we  now  propose  to  study.  As  to  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  its  study  is  that  of  the 
whole  New  Covenant,  and  of  its  spiritual  graces  ; 
for  this  baptism  implies  the  reception  of  the  Spirit 
into  the  heart,  and  His  whole  work  of  regeneration 
and  of  sanctification,  that  is  to  say,  the  most  vast 
and  profound  of  subjects. 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  5 

At  the  same  time,  in  order  not  to  go  astray  in  the 
investigation  which  we  are  about  to  make,  it  is 
indispensable  to  apply  without  delay  to  the  passages 
of  Scripture  referring  to  baptism  the  essential 
distinction  we  have  just  recognized,  and  to  make 
use  of  it  in  order  to  circumscribe  the  choice  of  the 
Biblical  materials  with  which  the  doctrine  of  the 
baptism  of  water  can  legitimately  be  constructed. 
For  it  is  evident  that  if,  in  our  Biblical  examination, 
we  do  not  carefully  maintain  this  distinction  of  two 
baptisms,  we  cannot  help  falling  into  serious  wan- 
derings and  into  an  inextricable  confusion.  If  we 
apply  to  the  baptism  of  water  what  is  said  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  to  the  latter  what  is 
declared  of  the  former,  we  are  no  longer  on  the 
ground  of  truth,  but  on  that  of  error.  This  confu- 
sion of  ideas  gives  birth  to  very  dangerous  heresies. 
The  baptismal  regeneration  which  the  Roman,  the 
Greek,  and  unfortunately  also  some  Protestant 
churches  profess,  has  no  other  source  than  this  con- 
fusion. It  has  been  said,  "  The  Bible  teaches  that 
baptism  saves  "  ;  and  this  has  been  said  with  truth  ; 
but  then  people  have  failed  to  distinguish  that,  in 
such  passages,  the  Bible  had  reference  to  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  only,  without  the  reception 
of  which,  indeed,  none  can  enter  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  Others,  the  Valentinians  and  the  Quakers, 
have  thrown  themselves  into  the  opposite  extreme, 


6  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

and  have  suppressed  entirely  the  baptism  of  water, 
so  as  to  acknowledge  only  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Others,  finally,  the  Baptists,  have  attempted 
to  fix  the  external  form  of  the  baptism  of  water 
by  applying  to  it  declarations  which  evidently  con- 
cern the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  ought  to 
relate  to  it  alone.  This  is  what  the  examination 
of  a  few  texts  will  show  us. 

§  4.     Four  Figures    of   Spiritual  Baptism.  — 

We  give  due  prominence  to  three  passages,  per- 
fectly similar,  and  having  but  one  and  the  same 
spiritual  meaning.  All  three  are  from  the  writings 
of  the  Apostle  Paul ;  all  three  are  addressed  to 
brethren  and  saints,  and  speak  of  their  intimate 
union  with  Christ  as  the  result  of  their  baptism, 
which  latter  is  represented  under  the  four  figures : 
1st,  of  a  Burial ;  2d,  of  a  Plant ;  3d,  of  a  Gar- 
ment ;  4th,  of  a  Circumcision  made  without  hands. 
But  let  us  quote  these  texts  before  commenting 
upon  them :  — 

"  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any 
longer  therein  ?  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us 
as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized 
into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life  ;  for 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  7 

if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of 
his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection."     (Rom.  vi.  2-5.) 

"  Ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus.  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  (Gal.  hi. 
26,  27.) 

"  In  whom  also,  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision 
of  Christ ;  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God."     (Col.  ii.  11,  12.) 

Is  reference  made  in  these  passages  to  the  bap- 
tism of  water,  or  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 
We  cannot  hesitate  a  moment  in  deciding  that  it 
is  the  latter  which  the  Apostle  has  in  view.  Allu- 
sion is  here  made  to  a  baptism  which  regenerates, 
—  to  a  baptism  which  renews  us  spiritually,  —  to 
a  baptism  by  virtue  of  which  we  are  actually  dead 
with  Christ,  united  to  him,  raised  with  him ;  in  a 
word,  to  a  baptism  which  is  not  a  figure,  nor  a  sign, 
nor  a  seal,  but  a  profound  reality,  as  otherwise  is 
shown  by  the  whole  context.  If  it  referred  here  to 
a  baptism  of  water,  then  the  baptism  of  water  would 
save.  Bnt  Saint  Paul  himself  unfolds  his  thought 
further  (Rom.  viii.  9,  10, 11),  by  saying  positively 
that  this  death  with  Christ  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit, 


8  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

and  therefore  spiritual.  Much  more,  it  is  a  constant 
work  ;  for  we  must,  day  by  day,  die  with  Christ, 
be  crucified  with  him,  buried  with  him,  and  raised 
with  him  to  newness  of  life.  There  can,  therefore, 
be  no  question,  that  reference  is  here  made  ex- 
clusively to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  for 
Simon  the  Magician  and  others  indeed  received 
the  baptism  of  water  from  the  very  hands  of  the 
Apostles,  and  yet  they  were  never  united  to  Christ, 
were  never  dead  with  him,  nor  raised  with  him  to 
newness  of  life. 

The  Roman  Catholics  and  the  Baptists,  neverthe- 
less, understand  these  passages  as  relating  to  the 
baptism  of  water,  and  regard  this  interpretation 
as  essential  to  their  doctrine.  The  first,  and  with 
them  the  Puseyites  and  some  other  exaggerated 
Pedobaptists,  because  they  can  thus  prove  baptismal 
regeneration,  the  opus  operatum,  the  magical  in- 
fluence of  the  sacraments.  The  second,  because 
they  can  thus  find  a  plausible  meaning  for  their 
great  ceremony  of  immersion  which  then  figures 
burial  with  Christ,  and  to  which,  without  the  aid 
of  these  passages,  they  would  not  well  know  what 
meaning  to  give.  But  the  Baptists  not  only  base 
their  views  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  the  text, 
but  also  are  here  distinguished  from  Romanists  by  a 
great  inconsistency,  and  still  more  by  an  extreme 
arbitrariness.      The   inconsistency   consists   in    re- 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  9 

jecting  baptismal  regeneration  ;  for  if  it  is  the  bap- 
tism of  water  which  unites  us  so  intimately  to 
Christ,  which  applies  to  us  the  benefit  of  his  death 
and  of  his  resurrection,  which,  in  a  word,  accom- 
plishes all  that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  do  within  us,  we 
cannot  then  escape  the  conclusion  of  the  Romanists, 
that  it  is  the  baptism  of  water  which  saves.  The 
arbitrariness  consists  in  this,  that  while  the  Apostle 
depicts  to  us  this  baptism  under  these  four  figures,  a 
burial,  a  plant,  a  garment,  and  a  circumcision,  the 
Baptists  make  use  of  a  single  one,  —  that  which 
refers  to  their  practice,  —  a  burial,  and  materialize 
it,  neglecting  the  two  following,  the  plant  and  the 
garment,  and  utterly  rejecting  the  fourth,  which 
does  not  suit  them  at  all,  namely,  circumcision. 
Not  content  with  thus  curtailing  the  Word,  they 
adhere  to  only  half  of  the  figure  they  have  singled 
out  and  materialized.  For  while  we  should  be 
buried  by  baptism,  not  only  "with"  but  also  "into" 
Christ,  they  profess  to  be  only  plunged  with  Christ, 
not  into  him,  but  into  the  water,  which  water  is  not 
Christ.  Roman  Catholics,  with  their  fashion  of 
wresting  Scripture  for  the  support  of  their  doctrines, 
have  never  pushed  further  either  inconsistency  or 
arbitrariness. 

§  5.    To  believe  and  to  be  baptized  the  two 

Conditions  of  Salvation.  —  There  is  another  pas- 

l* 


10  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

sage,  generally  acknowledged  as  very  difficult,  upon 
which  this  distinction  between  two  baptisms  throws 
a  strong  light,  and  through  which  alone  a  satis- 
factory solution  is  obtained.  It  is  these  words  of 
Mark,  xvi.  16 :  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved."  Here  then,  in  a  doctrinal  declara- 
tion of  our  Lord  himself,  are  two  conditions  of  sal- 
vation,—  Faith  and  Baptism.  First,  the  activity  of 
man  in  believing,  then  afterwards  the  passive  re- 
ception of  a  baptism,  and  after  that  only  salvation. 
It  has  been  thought  possible  to  escape  from  this 
rigorous  conclusion,  by  pointing  out  that  it  is  added, 
"  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  with- 
out its  being  said  that  he  who  has  not  been  baptized 
shall  be  damned.  But  this  explains  nothing,  for 
if  there  are  two  steps  to  arrive  at  salvation,  first 
faith,  then  baptism,  it  is  clear  of  itself  that  he  who 
cannot  reach  even  the  first  step,  faith,  is  not  saved, 
or,  what  amounts  to  the  same,  is  damned.  Thus 
then,  this  negative  proposition,  "  He  that  believeth 
not,"  only  supports  and  confirms  the  positive  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,"  as  condition  of  the 
"  shall  be  saved."  Besides,  the  construction  of  the 
sentence  is  simple,  and  leaves  no  room  for  doubt. 
The  grammar  rigorously  demands  that  we  should 
consider  this  "  believeth  and  is  baptized  "  as  the 
double  condition  of  the  "  shall  be  saved."  Let 
a  baptism  of  water  be  seen  here,  and  it  is  impos- 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  11 

sible  to  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  latter  is 
indispensable  to  salvation,  and  that  faith  without 
water  is  not  sufficient  to  save.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
we  recall  the  important  distinction  first  made  by 
John  the  Baptist,  and  reaffirmed  afterwards  by 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  and  recognize  here 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  the  passage 
becomes  perfectly  clear,  and  its  sense  is  in  agree- 
ment with  all  the  other  teachings  of  Scripture  upon 
regeneration,  which  is  fully  implied  in  faith  followed 
by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  "  After  that  ye  be- 
lieved, ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit."  (Eph. 
i.  13.) 

But  here  we  shall  be  met  with  the  serious  objection 
that  in  the  passage  of  Mark,  xvi.  16,  there  can  be 
question  of  no  other  baptism  than  in  Matt,  xxviii. 
19,  where  Jesus  Christ  orders  his  disciples  to  go 
and  baptize  the  nations,  and  where  evidently  refer- 
ence is  made  to  a  baptism  of  water.  We  answer, 
that  both  passa.ges,  indeed,  refer  to  the  same  cir- 
cumstance, namely,  the  commission  given  by  the 
Lord  to  his  disciples  to  go  forth  and  evangelize  the 
world.  But  neither  of  the  two  narratives  is  com- 
plete by  itself,  for  each  places  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus 
different  words.  Each  of  the  two  Gospels  gives 
us  but  a  fragment  of  the  discourse  of  the  Lord,  and 
did  we  know  no  more,  we  should  be  obliged  to  com- 
plete these  recitals  one  through  the  other,  by  saying 


12  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

that  in  this  discourse  Jesus  Christ  made  allusion 
to  the  two  baptisms,  —  that  Matthew  relates  to  us 
what  he  said  of  the  baptism  of  water,  and  Mark 
what  he  said  upon  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But, 
happily,  here  we  are  not  reduced  to  a  simple  prob- 
ability ;  we  have  in  favor  of  our  opinion  Biblical 
certainty.  The  narrative  of  the  two  Gospels  is 
further  completed  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
where  we  learn  that  in  that  solemn  moment  when 
Jesus,  after  being  risen  from  the  dead,  gave  his  last 
orders  to  his  disciples,  he  in  fact  spoke  to  them  of 
two  baptisms :  "  John  truly  baptized  with  water ; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
(Acts  i.  5.) 

For  the  rest,  Romanists  and  Baptists  alone  have 
a  doctrinal  interest  in  finding  a  baptism  of  water  in 
the  words  of  Mark  :  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved."  Romanists,  in  order  to 
base  upon  it  their  sacramental  regeneration  ;  the 
Baptists,  to  show  that  by  the  order  of  terms  the 
baptism  of  water  comes  after  saving  faith.  But 
here,  as  above,  the  Baptists  are  less  consistent  than 
the  Romanists,  since  they  deny  that  the  baptism  of 
water  is  essential  to  salvation. 

§  6.  Baptism  and  Baptisms.  —  Now,  in  order 
to  complete  the  separation  of  the  passages  relating  to 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Gho'st  from  those  referring 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  13 

to  a  water  baptism,  we  shall  rapidly  pass  under 
review  some  other  texts,  less  important  in  the  dis- 
cussion than  the  preceding  ones,  but  which  must 
first  be  classified  to  facilitate  ulterior  investigation. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (vi.  2)  mention  is 
made  of  "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms."  This  plural 
agrees  very  well  with  our  doctrine  of  two  baptisms  ; 
but  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (iv.  5)  Paul 
declares,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  "  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism."  Which  is  this  one  bap- 
tism? Even  before  casting  the  eye  upon  the  con- 
text, the  question  can  unhesitatingly  be  answered. 
Eor  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  infinitely  superior  to  the  baptism  of 
water ;  that,  as  Saint  Peter  states  it  in  energetic 
terms,  the  one  "  saves  us,"  while  the  other  only 
"  puts  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  and  it  will  not 
be  difficult  to  admit  that  when  an  apostle  speaks  of 
a  baptism  in  exalted  terms,  but  without  defining,  it 
can  be  only  baptism  par  excellence,  that  which  in  a 
profound  sense  is  emphatically  baptism,  the  only 
true  and  effective  one,  since  the  other  is  only  its 
shadow,  its  figure  or  preparation.  But  let  us  look 
at  the  context,  and  we  shall  find  this  point  of  view 
entirely  confirmed.  In  reference  to  what  does  the 
Apostle  speak  here  of  baptism  ?  It  is  (ver.  3  and  4) 
in  order  to  urge  the  Ephesians  "  to  keep  between 
themselves  the  unity  of  the  Spirit."     To  this  object 


14  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

he  reminds  them  that  there  is  for  them  but  "  one 
body,  one  Spirit,  one  hope,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  one  God."  Certainly  it  is  not  the  baptism 
of  water  which  causes  the  unity  of  the  redeemed 
and  of  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ ;  a  glance  cast 
upon  the  churches  and  sects  of  Christianity  suf- 
ficiently shows  that  it  is  not.  Moreover,  if  the  least 
doubt  still  remained  in  the  mind  of  the  reader, 
Saint  Paul  himself  would  dissipate  it  by  further 
defining  his  thought  in  1  Cor.  xii.  13 :  "  For  by 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  By 
this  it  is  seen  to  be  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  that 
makes  us  one  body,  and  it  is  precisely  the  idea 
which  Paul  repeats  and  unfolds  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ephesians.  Because  there  are  not  two  baptisms  of 
the  Spirit,  but  one  baptism  of  the  same  Spirit,  and 
one  Spirit  supposes  one  body,  whilst  two  bodies 
would  imply  two  Spirits,  therefore  Christians  should 
feel  their  spiritual  unity  and  remain  faithful  to  it. 

§  7.  "  The  Figure  that  saves."  —  Finally,  there 
is  another  class  of  passages  where  there  is  a  men- 
tion of  baptism  made  in  such  a  manner  as  to  con- 
found apparently  the  water  and  the  Spirit,  the 
figure  and  its  emblem,  the  sign  and  the  thing  sig- 
nified. But  it  is  evident  that  it  is  then  the  part 
of  sound  criticism  to  refer  the  sense  of  the  text 
essentially  to  the  most  exalted  baptism,  that  of  the 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  15 

Spirit,  and  to  acknowledge  that  water  is  there 
mentioned  only  as  a  symbol.  Here  are  these  pas- 
sages ;  we  group  them  together  in  order  that  they 
may  serve  to  complete  and  mutually  explain  each 
other :  — 

"  But  ye  are  washed in  the  name  of  the 

Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  (1  Cor. 
vi.  11.) 

"  Christ  also  loved  the  Church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with 
the  washing  of  water  by  the  Word,  that  he  might 
present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having 
spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  that  it 
should  be  holy  and  without  blemish."  (Eph.  v.  25, 
26,  27.) 

"  God  our  Saviour  has  saved  us,  not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to 
his  mercy,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us 
abundantly."     (Tit.  iii.  4,  5,  6.) 

To  reach  more  promptly  a  conclusion,  let  us  take 
hold  at  once  of  the  most  difficult  passage,  that  where 
it  is  said  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  has  cleansed  his 
Church  with  the  baptism  of  water.  Here  is  a  very 
extraordinary  assertion.  What !  the  Apostle  in 
speaking  here  of  the  invisible  Church  of  the  elect, 
says  that  it  is  by  a  baptism  of  water  that  Jesus  Christ 
has  cleansed  and  sanctified  it !     If  so,  baptism  of 


16  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

water  saves.  Then,  what  is  still  more  surprising 
is,  that,  from  the  thief  upon  the  cross,  there  are 
thousands  of  the  elect  who  have  died  without  re- 
ceiving the  baptism  of  water,  and  who  notwith- 
standing have  been  saved,  so  that  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted as  an  incontestable  fact,  that  Christ,  in  spite 
of  the  passage  above,  has  not  cleansed  in  the  bap- 
tism of  water  his  whole  Church,  but  only  a  portion, 
supposing  that  he  ever  baptized  any  one  himself. 
We  have  then  before  us  in  this  text  a  flagrant  con- 
tradiction and  absurdity. 

Nevertheless,  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  very 
simple  ;  it  is  that  this  baptism,  or  washing  of  water, 
is  plainly  spoken  of  as  a  figure  ;  that  it  has  a  spirit- 
ual sense  ;  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  which  has 
operated  this  washing,  and  not  the  hand  of  men ; 
and  this  the  more  because  Jesus  Christ  himself 
never  baptized  with  water.     (John  iv.  2.) 

If  "  Christ  has  cleansed  the  Church  with  the  wash- 
ing of  water  by  the  Word,"  or,  according  to  the 
original,  in  the  Word,  the  meaning  must  be  that  the 
Church  was  essentially  cleansed  or  baptized  by  the 
Saviour  himself,  not  in  the  water,  but  in  the  Word. 
The  water  here  only  completes  the  idea  in  the  figure 
of  washing,  and  the  Church  is  washed  in  the  Word 
as  we  wash  in  water.  It  is  a  spiritual  baptism.  It 
is  absolutely  the  same  idea  which  we  find  in  the 
other  two  passages,  "  washed  by  the  Spirit,"  "  saved 


THE   TWO   BAPTISMS.  17 

by  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  passages  to  which 
we  can  also  add  (Eph.  i.  13),  "  sealed  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,"  an  expression  which  indicates  the  seal  of  a 
spiritual  baptism. 

The  Baptists  will  be  the  last  to  contest  this  inter- 
pretation, since  there  is  question  here  of  a  washing, 
and  not  of  an  immersion,  and  that  they  recognize 
the  baptism  of  water  only  where  there  is  an  immer- 
sion. As  to  others,  if  there  yet  remains  in  their 
minds  the  least  uncertainty  on  the  subject  of  this 
interpretation,  we  would  beg  them  to  take  notice 
of  this  word  of  Peter.  "  Eight  persons  were  saved 
by  water.  The  like  figure  whereunto,  even  bap- 
tism, doth  also  now  save  us."  (1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.) 
Here  is  certainly  something  much  stronger  for  the 
baptism  of  water  than  the  passages  of  Paul.  It  is 
indeed  said  that  baptism  saves,  and  this  must  be,  to 
all  appearances,  a  baptism  of  water.  Yet  it  is  by  no 
means  so  ;  the  Apostle  has  taken  great  care,  on  the 
contrary,  to  warn  us  that  it  is  in  "  figure  "  only 
that  the  baptism  of  water  saves.  And  in  order  to 
guard  well  against  misconception  here,  and  that  it 
may  be  clearly  understood  that  it  is  not  the  figure, 
but  the  thing  figured,  which  saves,  he  is  careful  to 
add  an  explanation  in  which  he  lowers  the  baptism 
of  water  below  the  spiritual  baptism  in  a  manner 
and  to  a  degree  which  has  often  struck  us :  "  Bap- 
tism, not  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 


18  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God 
by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ." 

§  8.    Some  Passages  made  clear  by  a  double 

Baptism.  —  The  distinction  between  the  two  bap- 
tisms of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  casts  much  light 
on  other  passages  where  baptism  is  not  expressly 
mentioned,  but  where  doubtless  allusion  is  made  to 
it,  such  as  the  following :  — 

"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
(John  iii.  5.)  The  water  would  here  figure  the 
washing  of  sins,  and  the  Spirit  represent  interior 
sanctification  which  follows  pardon. 

"  There  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the 
spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood ;  and  these 
three  agree  in  one."  (1  John  v.  8.)  Here  can 
be  traced  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bap- 
tism of  water,  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Three  great 
facts,  which  indeed  bear  witness  upon  earth,  in 
symbolical  and  mysterious  language,  for  repentance, 
remission  of  sins,  atonement,  salvation,  and  sanctifi- 
cation ;  in  a  word,  for  the  whole  work  of  redemp- 
tion by  Christ. 

This  double  baptism  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  appears  even  to  have  been  foretold  by  the' 
prophets :  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  you  shall  be  cleansed  ;.  from  all  your  filthiness 


THE   TWO  BAPTISMS.  19 

will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  yon, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  I  pnt  within  you."  (Ezek. 
xxxvi.  25,  26,  27.) 

We  do  not  quote  these  passages  here  to  rest  upon 
them  any  argument.  They  are  not  necessary  to 
our  subject,  and  we  could  have  passed  them  over. 
We  have  preferred  to  show  the  light  which  a  double 
baptism  casts  upon  them  ;  but  without  attaching, 
in  view  of  the  discussion,  the  least  value  to  the  in- 
terpretation we  have  suggested.. 

We  abandon  here  further  researches  on  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  we  have  mentioned 
only  to  distinguish  it  clearly  from  the  baptism  of 
water,  and  in  order  to  fix  and  circumscribe  the 
Scriptural  domain  of  the  latter.  This  distinction  is 
already  a  great  step  made  in  the  difficult  study  of 
a  doctrine  controverted  among  the  most  estimable 
and  most  learned  Evangelical  Christians,  and  it  will 
be  of  immense  advantage,  in  our  subsequent  re- 
searches, to  be  able  to  avoid  this  confusion  of  ideas 
on  the  subject  of  the  baptisms  of  water  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  is  common  to  both  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE  FATHERS   OF  THE   CHUECH. 

§  9.    The  Proofs  drawn  fro  in  the  Fathers  are 

not  decisive.  —  There  is  found  in  almost  all  the 
treatises  on  baptism  a  disquisition,  deemed  of  abso- 
lute necessity,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church,  to  whom  an  appeal  is  thought  indis- 
pensable, in  order  to  know  what  to  regard  as  the 
baptismal  practice  of  the  apostolical  times.  This 
historic  portion  is  even  in  many  works  the  principal, 
and  often  forms  more  than  the  half.  By  general 
consent  two  sources  have  thus  been  adopted  -for  the 
study  of  baptism, — the  Bible  and  the  Fathers.  It  is 
necessary  that,  before  entering  upon  further  discus- 
sion, we  should  decide  in  reference  to  these  sources, 
and  that,  if  we  admit  them  both,  we  should  at  least 
fix  their  respective  value,  and  the  use  which  it  will 
be  lawful  for  us  to  make  of  the  Fathers.  Only  by 
thus  appreciating  and  limiting  the  field  of  data  upon 
baptism,  shall  we  succeed  in  using  in  the  search 
after  truth  nothing  but  legitimate  materials.     Now, 


THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         21 

we  renounce  completely  the  use  of  the  Fathers,  and 
we  shall  not  invoke  their  testimony  in  support  of 
our  doctrines  on  baptism.  We  make  this  act  of  re- 
nunciation after  having  sufficiently  explored  their 
writings  to  become  convinced  that  the  bearing  of 
their  testimony  has  been  much  exaggerated.  Here 
are,  in  a  few  words,  our  reasons  for  setting  aside 
the  Fathers  in  our  researches. 

1st.  This  great  importance  conceded  to  them  in 
works  on  baptism,  this  fashion  of  placing  quotations 
from  their  writings  side  by  side  with  those  of  the 
Bible,  imply,  in  the  mind  of  the  reader,  that  Scrip- 
ture is  insufficient  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism upon  a  sure  foundation.  Hence  arises  an 
uncertainty,  much  increased  by  the  length  and  ob- 
scurity of  the  passages  from  the  Fathers,  and  which 
leads  many  either  to  indifference  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  or  to  imaginary  views  based  on  human 
authority. 

2d.  It  is  only  towards  the  commencement  of  the 
third  century  that  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers 
on  controverted  points  in  the  practice  of  baptism 
becomes  clear  and  decisive.  But  it  is  then  already 
too  late  to  be  able  to  decide  with  certainty  through 
this  means  what  must  have  been  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles.  A  century  and  a  half  was  more  than 
sufficient  for  the  Church  to  modify  considerably 
both  the  doctrine  and  the  practice  of  baptism,  which 


22  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

at  that  period  we  find  already  sadly  mixed  up  with 
superstition  and  paganism.  Thus  the  evidence  be- 
fore the  third  century  amounts  to  very  little,  is 
obscure  and  insufficient.  That  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, itself  more  complete,  is  already  too  late  to 
be  conclusive,  while  that  posterior  to  this  period 
is  worth  still  less.  It  is  grievous,  therefore,  to 
see  a  recent  work,  written  on  the  Baptist  side, 
devote  the  smaller  portion  of  its  pages  to  Scriptu- 
ral study,  and  the  larger  to  the  Fathers  and  their 
successors.  Of  what  use  is  it  to  heap  up,  with 
great  historical  toil,  all  the  follies  which  may  have 
been  uttered  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  from 
Origen  to  Luther  and  Calvin,  and  even  up  to  the 
present  age  ?  What  can  this  prove  ?  Would  an 
historical  work,  relating  all  the  follies  uttered  upon 
the  Trinity  from  Origen  to  our  days,  be  found  very 
conclusive  against  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  ?  Such  a  work  could  easily  be  done ; 
but  when  called  upon  to  decide  upon  such  an  im- 
portant doctrine,  all  Evangelical  Christians  would 
be  unanimous  in  appealing  only  to  Scripture. 

3d.  In  fact,  it  is  not  quotations  from  the  Fa- 
thers, but  the  peculiar  interpretation  of  some  pas- 
sages of  the  Bible,  which  makes  or  unmakes  Bap- 
tists. The  Fathers  are  only  brought  forward  by 
both  parties  in  support  of  foregone  conclusions, 
in  order  to  prop  up  an  ill-constructed  system  with 


THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         23 

any  accessory  that  will  render  it  plausible.  For 
ourselves,  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  declare  that, 
if  the  practice  of  Christian  baptism,  in  its  essen- 
tials, cannot  be  sufficiently  determined  by  the 
Bible  alone,  it  had  better  be  entirely  discontinued. 
Far  better  would  it  be  to  acquiesce  in  regarding, 
with  the  Quakers,  the  baptism  of  water  as  a  cere- 
mony become  impracticable,  than  to  attempt  mak- 
ing up  for  a  Scriptural  uncertainty  by  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Fathers,  and  thus  add  to  the  Bible. 

§  10.  The  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  would 
be  in  Favor  of  Pedobaptism.  —  We  understand 
very  well,  however,  that  by  thus  setting  the  Fathers 
aside,  we  are  perhaps  exposing  ourselves  to  the  sus- 
picion that  they  are  not  with  the  Pedobaptists,  and 
that  it  is  the  consciousness  of  our  weakness  upon 
this  ground  which  renders  us  so  far  from  eager 
to  claim  their  assistance.  It  is  nothing  of  the 
kind.  We  are  convinced,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  in  behalf  of  infant  bap- 
tism would  crush  its  adversaries,  and  that  even 
those  patristical  extracts  which  are  most  prized 
by  the  Baptists  as  favoring  their  doctrine,  witness 
in  reality  against  them  when  sifted  and  closely 
examined.  Such  is  also  the  conviction  of  the 
best  judge  and  appreciator  of  the  historical  evi- 
dence on  baptism,  Wall,  who  has  been  surnamed 


24  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

"  the  historian  of  baptism."  This  author,  after 
having  spent  several  years  of  his  life  in  the  atten- 
tive reading  of  the  Fathers  and  in  the  gathering 
of  their  evidence  on  this  doctrine  and  practice, 
and  after  having  collected  impartially,  in  two  con- 
siderable volumes,  all  the  patristical  extracts  which 
make  even  the  most  distant  allusion  to  baptism, 
so  as  to  supply  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  with 
a  complete  arsenal,  declares  that  the  result  is  en- 
tirely favorable  to  Pedobaptism,  that  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers  is  after  all  unanimous  for  infant 
baptism,  inasmuch  as  such  of  them  as  opposed  this 
practice  did  not  reject  it  on  Scriptural  grounds, 
acknowledged  its  universal  use  in  the  Church,  and 
never  questioned  the  fact  that  it  had  been  handed 
down  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 

§  11.  The  first  Baptist,  Tertullian,  was  not 
one.  —  Nevertheless,  as  we  are  unwilling  to  proceed 
in  this  discussion  otherwise  than  in  a  perfectly  sure 
and  satisfactory  manner,  if  our  Baptist  opponents 
are  not  satisfied  with  the  above  reasons  for  leav- 
ing aside  the  evidence  of  the  Fathers,  we  are  pre- 
pared to  offer  to  them  a  generous  concession.  We 
shall  produce  the  testimony  of  one  Father,  and 
that  Father  shall  be  the  choice  man  of  the  Bap-- 
tists,  their  best  historical  mainstay,  the  one  they 
constantly  bring  forward,  namely,  Tertullian.    We 


THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.         25 

renounce  all  the  assistance  which  we  could  derive 
from  the  declarations  exclusively  pedobaptist  of 
the  Constitutions  of  Egypt,  of  Justin,  Clemens, 
Cyprian,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Augustin,  etc.,  etc., 
and  even  of  Origen,  the  most  learned  and  best 
critic  amongst  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  This 
sacrifice,  which  nothing  forces  upon  us,  is  our 
own  affair,  and  can  raise  no  complaints  on  the 
part  of  Baptists,  since  we  grant  them  their  best 
patristical  weapons,  while  we  voluntarily  silence  our 
best  witnesses.  But  we  do  this,  well  knowing 
that  we  shall  force  from  them  the  avowal  that  their 
only  Father,  confessedly  the  first  and  only  one 
who  has  opposed  infant  baptism  during  the  first 
four  centuries  of  the  Church,  is  far  from  being 
one  of  their  number ;  nay,  that  he  is  a  dangerous 
friend,  who  requires  only  to  be  better  known,  that 
they  should  hasten  to  disown  him.  Let  us  then 
examine  closely  and  in  its  details  the  doctrine 
of  this  first  Baptist,  who  is  represented  to  us  as 
the  champion  of  the  purity  of  baptism  in  an  age 
when  it  had  long  become  corrupted  by  its  general 
administration  to  infants. 

Here  is  what  he  teaches  :  1st.  "  It  is  an  acknowl- 
edged rule  that  none  can  be  saved  without  baptism. 
2d.  Those  who  say  that  we  can  be  saved  by  faith, 
like  Abraham,  without  having  received  the  sacra- 
ment of  water,  are  impious  men.     3d.  Before  Jesus 


26  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

Christ  faith  was  sufficient  to  save,  but  is  no  longer  so 
since  his  death,  for  he  has  bound  up  faith  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  baptism.  4th.  It  is  the  privilege  of  bish- 
ops alone  to  baptize.  5th.  But  in  case  of  danger  a 
layman  should  baptize,  otherwise  he  is  guilty  of  the 
damnation  of  the  soul.  6th.  There  is  advantage 
(not  duty)  in  delaying  baptism  principally  in  the 
case  of  little  children.  (Cunctatio  baptismi  utilior 
est :  prcecipue  tamen  circa  parvulos.}  7th.  He  ac- 
knowledges the  institution  of  Sponsors.  8th.  It 
is  especially  in  view  of  Sponsors  that  he  judges 
the  delay  of  baptism  useful,  because  they  are  in 
danger  of  being  unable  to  keep  the  engagement 
into  which  they  enter  in  reference  to  the  religion 
of  the  child.  9th.  As  to  infants,  the  reason  for  de- 
ferring their  baptism  is  that,  being  innocent,  it  is 
imprudent  to  obtain  for  them,  through  baptism, 
the  remission  of  sins  which  they  have  not  yet  com- 
mitted. (  Quid  festinat  innocens  cetas  ad  remissio- 
nem  peccatorum  ?)  10th.  Children  are  too  young 
for  us  to  risk  intrusting  them  with  this  divine 
treasure.  11th.  For  the  same  reason,  unmarried 
persons  must  be  excluded  from  baptism,  as  being 
exposed  to  more  temptations  than  others.  12th. 
Baptism  should  also  be  refused  to  widows  until 
they  are  wedded  again,  or  until  they  have  made  a 
vow  of  perpetual  celibacy.  13th.  Those  who  un- 
derstand the  great  value  of  baptism  will  be  much 


THE  FATHEKS  OF  THE  CHURCH.        27 

more  afraid  to  receive  it  than  to  wait.  14th.  The 
suitable  time  for  receiving  baptism  is  Easter,  since 
we  must  be  baptized  into  the  Lord's  death.  15th. 
No  child  of  pagan  parents  is  pure,  but  the  children 
of  even  one  single  Christian  parent  are  holy  by 
privilege  of  descent.  (Sanctos  ex  seminis  prcero- 
g-ativa.')  16th.  The  children  of  believers  are  ap- 
pointed to  holiness,  and  by  that  very  fact  to  salva- 
tion. 17th.  One  should  prepare  himself  for  the 
reception  of  baptism  by  devotions,  fastings,  genu- 
flections, watchings,  and  confessions.  18th.  Before 
receiving  the  water  of  baptism,  the  candidate  should 
profess  that  he  renounces  the  Devil,  his  pomp, 
and  his  angels.  19th.  He  should  dress  himself  in 
white  garments.  20th.  Then  he  must  be  plunged 
three  times  in  the  water.  21st.  The  efficacy  of 
the  sacrament  arises  from  the  fact,  that  the  water 
of  baptism  itself  is  impregnated  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  22d.  On  leaving  the  water  he  must  eat  a 
mixture  of  milk  and  honey,  which  represents  the 
food  of  Canaan.  23d.  From  this  moment  he  must 
abstain  during  the  whole  week  from  bathing  (in 
order  not  to  remove,  by  profane  water,  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  holy  water  of  baptism).  24th.  At  the 
moment  of  baptism,  the  sign  of  the  cross  must  be 
made  on  the  forehead.  25th.  After  that,  the  can- 
didate should  never  bathe  without  repeating  the 
sign  of  the  cross  on  his  forehead.     26th.  After  the 


28  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

water  of  baptism,  the  neophyte  should  be  anointed 
with  an  oil  poured  from  a  horn,  and  prepared  after 
the  tradition  of  Aaron  and  Moses.  27th.  After- 
wards he  must  receive  the  laying  on  of  hands, 
so  that  the  Holy  Ghost  may  descend  upon  him," 
etc.,  etc.* 

§  12.  The  Baptist  Practice  has  sprung  up  as 
a  Development  of  Bomauisni. —  But  let  this  suf- 
fice ;  it  will  be  seen  from  the  above,  that  the  bap- 
tism of  Tertullian  is  composed  of  a  tissue  of  at  least 
twenty-seven  heresies  or  superstitions,  not  one  of 
which  his  professed  modern  friends  will  indorse.  His 
objections  to  infant  baptism  are  not  theirs,  nor  have 
a  shadow  of  resemblance  with  them.  If  he  delays 
baptism,  it  is  because  it  saves,  effaces  all  the  sins  of 
past  life,  and  that  we  must  wait  to  have  a  good  sup- 
ply of  these  to  make  it  worth  the  while  to  be  bap- 
tized. In  a  word,  Tertullian  is  a  Baptist  from  an  ex- 
cess of  Romanism.  He  is  a  Baptist  as  the  Emperor 
Constantine  was,  who,  from  conviction,  postponed 
his  baptism  till  the  hour  of  his  death,  in  order  to 
insure  the  greatest  benefit  from  it,  by  being  able  to 
live  in  sin  till  the  last  moment.  The  whole  Cath- 
olic Church,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  corruption,  and 
from  the  same  motives  as  Tertullian,  was  then  on 

*  De  Baptismo,  c.  7, 12, 13,  18,  20.    De  Anima,  c.  39,  40.    De  Corona 
Militis,  c.  1,  2,  3.     Contra  Marcion,  I.  14. 


THE  FATHERS  OF  THE  CHURCH.        29 

the  road  to  Baptist  practice  ;  and  the  entire  Church 
of  Rome  would  be  to-day,  and  long  since,  ultra- 
Baptist,  as  a  result  of  the  consistent  development 
of  her  doctrine,  had  she  not  invented  in  due  time 
additional  sacraments,  namely,  Confirmation  and 
Extreme  Unction,  in  order  to  distribute  over  all 
ages  of  life  the  supposed  virtue  of  baptism. 

We  most  cheerfully  abandon  Tertullian  to  our 
Baptist  friends.  Let  them  draw  from  him  all  the 
benefit  they  can  ;  but  let  them  at  least  not  attempt 
any  more  to  impose  upon  the  simple  and  ignorant 
the  belief  that  this  celebrated  heresiarch,  this  first 
Baptist,  had  in  common  with  them  a  single  point 
of  their  peculiar  doctrine. 

We  leave  here,  with  satisfaction,  the  Fathers,  to 
return  to  Scripture. 


CHAPTER    III 


IMMERSION. 


§  13.  The  Rite  of  Immersion  is  practised  in 
the  most  corrupt  Churches.  —  A  religious  cere- 
mony always  implies  an  external  form  with  an  inter- 
nal meaning.  The  form  is  that  which  first  calls  the 
attention  of  the  spectator ;  it  addresses  itself  to  his 
senses,  and  it  is  but  later  that  reflection  supervenes 
to  explain  the  figure  and  impart  to  the  rite  its 
spiritual  value.  Indeed,  to  a  great  many  the  cere- 
mony is  exclusively  a  form,  and  their  thoughts  never 
go  beyond.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  the  exter- 
nal practice  of  baptism  should  first  engross  our 
attention.  It  is  true  that  to  a  certain  extent  the 
form  must  assume  its  shape  from  the  internal  idea, 
and  that  it  is  only  after  the  latter  has  been  well 
ascertained  that  the  former  can  be  fully  understood. 
But  the  controversy  in  reference  to  the  mode  of 
baptism  rests  essentially  on  a  question  of  fact,  which- 
can  be  investigated  apart  from  the  spiritual  sense. 
Two  opinions  are  here  in  antagonism,  —  one,  that  the 


IMMERSION.  31 

baptism  of  water  in  apostolical  times  was  an  immer- 
sion ;  the  other,  that  it  was  an  affusion  or  sprink- 
ling. With  scarcely  an  exception,  the  Baptists  have 
pronounced  for  immersion.  The  Greek  Church 
sides  with  the  Baptists,  and  at  Moscow  children  are 
plunged  in  the  water.  The  Romish  Church  also 
indorses  the  Baptist  practice.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
Bonaventura,  and  others  advocated  it,  and  enforced 
it  during  the  Middle  Ages,  until  the  Council  of 
Trent  decreed  that  baptism  can  be  performed  either 
by  immersion  or  by  sprinkling,  the  former  being  the 
practice  in  several  dioceses,  such,  for  instance,  as 
that  of  Milan.  All  the  Protestant  churches,  with 
the  exception  of  Baptists,  practise  sprinkling.  The 
English  churches  have  not  first  suppressed  the  prac- 
tice of  immersion  at  the  Synod  of  Westminster  in 
1643,  and  by  the  majority  of  one  voice  only,  as  is 
asserted  in  some  Baptist  works.  A  triple  immer- 
sion had  been  practised  in  England  by  the  Romish 
Church,  and  had  afterwards  been  gradually  aban- 
doned by  the  Reformers.  The  synod  was  unani- 
mous in  behalf  of  sprinkling,  which  had  become  the 
established  practice,  and  the  vote  referred  merely 
to  the  more  or  less  severe  wording  of  an  article 
condemnatory  of  immersion. 

§  14.    Immersion  is  deemed  essential  by  the 

Baptists. —  To  several   of  our  Baptist  friends   in 


32  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

France  and  Switzerland  a  long  controversy  upon  im- 
mersion may  appear  as  useless.  They  have  often 
told  us  that  they  care  little  for  the  form,  but  much 
for  the  substance  of  baptism  ;  that  a  little  more  or 
less  water  in  a  baptism  can  be  of  no  consequence ; 
that  the  choice  between  immersion  and  sprinkling  is 
very  immaterial,  the  essential  being  that  baptism 
be  not  conferred  upon  unconscious  infants,  but 
restricted  to  believers  alone,  as  prescribed  by  the 
Bible.  But  the  Baptist  principle  cannot  be  fairly 
judged  from  its  aspect  in  countries  where  it  is 
recent;  where,  just  born,  it  has  not  had  sufficient 
time  to  develop  itself,  and  still  enjoys  the  innocence 
of  its  first  youth.  We  must  take  it  at  its  maturity,  in 
England,  and  especially  in  the  United  States,  where, 
entirely  free  for  two  hundred  years,  strong,  numer- 
ous, and  triumphant,  it  has  reached  its  complete 
development  and  produced  all  its  legitimate  fruits, 
as  it  is  infallibly  bound  also  to  do,  sooner  or  later,  in 
France  and  Switzerland.  Now,  wherever  the  Bap- 
tist principle  has  reached  its  maturity,  the  form 
prevails  over  the  idea,  and  absorbs  it.  There  is  no 
longer  any  baptism  but  immersion.  Sprinkling  is 
held  to  vitiate  essentially  baptism,  and  therefore 
to  be  no  baptism  at  all.  Immersion  alone  buries 
the  believer  with  Christ,  and  in  this  burial  consists 
the  very  idea  of  baptism  and  all  its  efficacy.  The 
American  Baptists  are  unanimous  in  considering  as 


IMMEESION.  33 

null  and  void  the  second  baptism  of  those  brethren 
who,  baptized  once  in  their  infancy,  have  been  bap- 
tized again  on  a  profession  of  faith,  but  with  sprink- 
ling. The  exact  quantity  of  water  specified  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  having  been  wanting,  this  second  bap- 
tism, although  that  of  a  believer,  is  of  no  account 
whatever,  merely  through  a  defect  in  the  form.  So 
much  is  this  the  case,  that  Baptist  missionaries  from 
Switzerland  have  been  driven  to  a  third  baptism  in 
order  to  obtain  the  confidence  and  support  of  their 
co-religionists  ;  and  that  rigid  Baptists  are  not  want- 
ing who  would  exact  a  fourth  one,  because  it  is 
more  Scriptural  to  be  plunged  in  the  river  than  in  a 
font  or  artificial  basin. 

§  15.  The  Practice  of  Immersion  cannot  be 
altered  if  Apostolical.  —  Let  us,  however,  render 
to  the  Baptists  their  due,  that  they  are  more  con- 
sistent in  reference  to  immersion  than  many  of  the 
champions  of  Pedobaptism,  who,  with  Neander,  cool- 
ly affirm,  that  the  Apostles  invariably  practised  im- 
mersion, but  that  we,  their  successors,  are  perfectly 
justified  in  doing  otherwise,  and  then  offer  some 
sort  of  an  apology  for  having  substituted  sprinkling. 
But  on  what  ground  should  we  presume  to  alter 
the  form  sanctioned  by  the  Lord,  his  Apostles,  and 
the  whole  primitive  Church  ?  Is  it  on  the  score  of 
tradition  ?     But  that  is  Romanism.     Is  it  because 

2*  C 


34  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

sprinkling  appears  more  suitable  and  convenient  ? 
But  this  is  rationalism.  We  can  accept  neither  of 
these.  We  intend,  therefore,  to  show  that  baptism 
by  immersion  is  a  modern  fiction  borrowed  from 
the  heathen  ;  that  neither  John  the  Baptist  nor  the 
Apostles  have  practised  immersion  ;  that  it  was  un- 
known to  them.  We  will  go  even  further,  at  the 
risk  of  being  stigmatized  as  rash  by  our  friends,  and 
we  will  assert  that  immersion  is  no  baptism.  We 
will  not  even  stop  until  we  have  proved  it  to  be  an 
indecency,  the  parody  of  a  Christian  institution,  if 
not  even  a  blasphemy.  We  pledge  ourselves  to 
much.     Let  us  open  the  discussion. 

§16.  Baptize  is  a  Greek  Word,  Anglicized, 
but  not  translated.  —  When  our  Reformers,  of 
blessed  memory,  undertook  to  translate  the  Bible 
into  the  common  vernacular,  they  were  stopped  by 
the  Greek  word,  Baptizd,  which  they  did  not  know 
how  to  render.  They  were  aware  that  this  expres- 
sion had  more  than  one  meaning,  and  that  there  was 
not  any  modern  word,  drawn  from  profane  language, 
which  corresponded  exactly  with  it.  Luther  alone 
found  an  approach  to  it,  in  the  German  Taufen. 
The  Reformers,  it  is  true,  and  Calvin  among  others, 
inclined  for  immersion  ;  but  their  respect  for  the 
Word  of  God  was  too  great  to  permit  them  ever 
to  make  their  particular  views  triumph  through  a 


IMMERSION.  35 

translation  affirming  what  the  original  text  does  not 
affirm.  Not  able  to  translate  this  word  without 
doing  injury  to  the  truth,  and  without  adding  to 
Scripture,  they  followed  the  example  of  the  most 
ancient  known  versions,  and  preserved  it,  such  as 
it  was,  making  use  in  their  translation  of  the  words 
baptize  and  baptism,  which  people  perfectly  under- 
stood, and  leaving  it  to  the  study  of  other  passages  to 
determine  whether  the  form  consisted  in  an  immer- 
sion, or  in  something  else.  They  used  precisely  the 
same  rule  with  regard  to  the  words  Gospel,  John 
the  Baptist,  Christ,  Apostle,  Church,  Presbytery, 
Deacon,  etc.,  which  are  so  many  Greek  words  car- 
ried over  into  the  English  language.  Honor  to 
those  men,  who,  in  their  profound  respect  for  inspi- 
ration, feared  to  add  to  the  Book,  or  to  take  away 
from  it  anything  whatever,  by  an  arbitrary  transla- 
tion of  an  important  word,  the  sense  of  which  did 
not  appear  certain  !  Shame  to  those  who  have 
spurned  this  noble  example,  and  who  have  not 
hesitated  to  insert  in  the  very  text  of  Scripture 
the  private  views  of  a  party,  of  a  small  minority 
of  Christians,  while  the  immense  majority  had  re- 
frained from  doing  so ! 

§  17.  The  ]Vew  Baptist  Bible.  —  In  the  coun- 
try where  the  Baptists  are  most  powerful  and  most 
numerous,  and  where  their  doctrine  has  reached  its 


36  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

climax,  in  the  United  States,  an  association,  founded 
in  1837,  under  the  innocent  title  of  "  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,"  has  undertaken  to  have  the 
Bible  re-translated  into  all  languages,  in  reference 
to  a  single  word,  and  in  order  to  make  the  Bible 
teach  baptism  by  immersion.  This  Society  is  not 
the  instrument  of  some  fanatics,  as  might  be 
thought,  but  it  was  the  avowed  organ  of  many 
thousands  of  Baptist  churches,  who  regard  these 
new  versions  as  indispensable  to  the  final  triumph  of 
their  ideas.  Just  as  we  have  had  the  Romish  Bible, 
then  the  Socinian  Bible,  we  have  now  the  Baptist 
Bible,  in  which  there  is  no  longer  any  baptism  or 
baptizing,  but  only  immersion  and  immersing.  In 
presence  of  such  a  fact,  a  cause  is  already  decided 
in  the  opinion  of  all  simple  and  impartial  Chris- 
tians. Previous  to  all  investigation,  will  not  that  be 
thought  indeed  a  bad  cause,  a  questionable  opin- 
ion, which  cannot  be  propped  up  without  altering 
the  Bible  of  the  Reformation  and  of  the  earliest 
ages  of  the  Church  ! 

The  pretensions  of  the  new  Baptist  Bible  are 
excessive.  The  leading  organs  of  the  denomina- 
tion do  not  hesitate  to  proclaim  that  their  Bible  is 
the  only  translation  that  exists,  since  hitherto  the 
Bible  had  not  really  been  translated,  but  its  truth 
disguised  under  the  mask  of  Greek  words ;  for,  if 
we  should  believe  them,  baptism  and  baptize  are 


IMMEESION.  37 

not  legitimately  English  words.  They  state,  in  an 
official  document,  the  Annual  Report  of  their  Soci- 
ety, that  all  the  other  versions  but  theirs  are  "  un- 
faithful " ;  that  in  them  "  the  real  meaning  of 
words  is  purposely  kept  out  of  sight,"  and  that  all 
the  other  Bible  Societies  "  have  virtually  combined 
to  obscure  at  least  a  part  of  Divine  Revelation." 
They  have  thus  produced  a  new  English  Bible, 
which  they  give  out  as  the  only  pure  Word  of  God, 
but  from  which  they  have  taken  away  all  mention  of 
baptism,  and  into  which  instead  they  have  inserted 
their  private  practice,  immersion.  The  French  Bap- 
tist Bible,  printed  in  New  York,  is  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  the  authority  of  a  powerful  denomination,  the 
first  and  only  complete  translation  of  the  Bible  in 
French,  without  even  excepting  the  new  Swiss  ver- 
sion, which,  although  impregnated  with  Baptist  ten- 
dencies, has  retained  the  words  baptism  and  baptize. 
The  French  Baptist  Bible  of  New  York  has  other- 
wise been  manufactured  according  to  a  very  plain 
receipt,  which  consists  in  amalgamating  the  Protes- 
tant and  Romish  versions,  excluding  completely  the 
words  baptism  and  baptize,  and  introducing  as  fre- 
quently as  possible  the  words  immersion  and  im- 
merse. It  must  cause,  besides,  no  little  merriment 
to  French  Protestants  to  receive  from  across  the 
water,  in  the  only  Bible  said  to  be  fit  for  their  use, 
lessons   of  stiff   politeness   along  with   immersion. 


38  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

The  Apostles,  the  brethren,  and  the  angels  have 
given  up  the  old-fashioned  Thou,  which  is  still  of 
universal  use  in  France,  as  the  language  of  famil- 
iarity and  friendship.  The  proscribed  Thou  is  not 
even  placed  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Christ,  while  the 
disciples  in  the  Lord's  prayer  are  compelled  to  say 
with  Romanists :  "  Our  Father  who  are  in  heaven, 
hallowed  be  your  name  ;  your  kingdom  come,"  etc. 
And  yet,  after  all  these  discreditable  innovations, 
the  Baptist  version  has  not  kept  its  promise  ;  against 
its  principles  and  its  engagements,  it  has  allowed 
some  Greek  to  linger  behind.  For  why  speak 
always  to  us  of  the  precursor  as  being  "  John  the 
Baptist"?  Why  conceal  from  the  people,  under 
the  mask  of  a  Greek  word,  that  he  was  "  John  the 
Plunger  "  ?  The  Baptist  version,  judged  from  its 
own  principles,  is  therefore  as  yet  far  from  com- 
plete. Let  also  our  friends,  in  order  to  be  consistent, 
not  call  themselves  any  longer  Baptists,  but  stand 
before  the  public  as  the  Plungers,  —  the  Plunging 
denomination,  and  the  Plunging  Bible  Society. 

§  18.  To  immerse  means  to  drown. — It  must 
be  acknowledged,  besides,  that,  after  deciding  to 
translate  baptizo,  the  Baptists  have  been  most  unfor- 
tunate in  the  choice  of  a  suitable  word.  Intent  upon 
no  longer  giving  Greek  to  the  people,  and  under  the 
plea  of  translating'  and  better  explaining,  they  have 


IMMERSION.  39 

replaced  the  word  baptize,  which  was  perfectly  well 
known,  by  the  Latin  immerge  or  immerse,  which  was 
unused,  and  which  is  far  less  English  than  the  time- 
honored  baptize.  The  use  of  the  term  was  proba- 
bly confined  to  astronomy  until  the  Baptists  claimed 
it  for  their  ceremony,  and  we  doubt  if  even  to  this 
day  it  is  understood  by  common  people,  unless  after 
coming  in  contact  with  Baptists.  A  long- Anglicized 
Greek  word  replaced  by  an  unpopular  Latin  one  ! 
This  is  truly  going  from  Charybdis  into  Scylla.  This 
is  not  improving  a  translation,  it  is  spoiling  it. 
What  would  a  common  man,  a  Roman  Catholic,  to 
whom  a  colporteur  should  sell  the  Baptist  Bible, 
understand  by  the  language  of  John  :  "  I  indeed  im- 
merse you  in  water,  but  Jesus  Christ  shall  immerse 
you  into  the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  fire "  ?  or  by 
these  words  of  Paul :  "  John  verily  immersed  with 
the  immersion  of  repentance  "  ?  In  reality,  the  true 
practical  end  in  the  employment  of  these  great, 
mysterious  words,  is  not  to  translate  and  enlighten 
the  Word  of  God,  but,  on  the  contrary,  by  the  aid 
of  the  vagueness  and  obscurity  which  hover  about 
them,  to  make  the  simple-minded  accept  a  new 
ceremony,  as  if  it  were  ordered  in  the  Gospel. 

This  Latin  word  immerge  does  not  mean  to  plunge, 
but  to  drown,  to  bury  under  the  water  and  keep 
there.  Thus  in  Virgil,  when  Achemenides,  in  de- 
spair, entreats  the  Trojan  sailors  to  give  him  death, 


40  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

he  says  :  "  Spargite  me  in  fluctus,  vastoque  immer- 
gite  ponto."  (iEn.  iii.  605.)  "  Cast  me  into  the 
waves  and  drown  me  in  the  deep  sea."  In  the  same 
way  further  on,  the  pilot,  Palinurus,  declares  to 
iEneas,  that  although  he  has  been  cast  into  the 
sea  from  the  deck  of  the  vessel,  he  has  not  been 
immersed,  that  is  to  say,  drowned,  because  he  suc- 
ceeded in  swimming  to  the  shore  and  thus  saving 
his  life.  {Mn.  vi.  342,  348.)  But  Misenus  (vi. 
174)  is  purposely  killed  by  immersion,  and  his  body 
burned  afterwards.  Such  is  the  true  classical  sense 
of  the  word  immerse.  Thus,  the  Baptists  virtually 
insist  that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Apostles  have 
drowned  the  believers  in  much  water,  while  Jesus 
Christ  would  have  drowned  them  in  the  Holy 
Ghost !  There  are  two  words,  however,  which  are 
excellent  Anglo-Saxon,  and  that  express  correctly 
and  exactly  the  Baptist  practice,  namely,  to  plunge 
and  to  dip.  Their  baptism  is  nothing  else,  for  the 
individual  does  not  remain  under  water  more  than 
a  second,  and  he  is  hurriedly  drawn  out  that  he  may 
not  suffocate ;  their  ceremony  is  therefore  nothing 
but  a  rapid  plunge.  But  they  have  wished  neither 
really  to  translate,  nor  to  call  things  by  their  right 
name,  and  feeling  that  such  simplicity  would  destroy 
the  prestige  of  their  doctrine,  they  have  gone  out 
of  the  way  to  borrow  from  the  Latin  long  words 
rather  unused  and  not  understood  by  the  common 
people. 


IMMERSION.  41 

§  19.    Classical  Meaning  of  the  Word  Baptize. 

—  But  let  us  come  now  to  the  Greek  word  baptizd, 
or,  as  it  is  often  met  shorter,  bapto;  these  two  forms, 
as  it  is  agreed  on  both  sides,  being  but  two  different 
aspects  of  the  same  root,  and  the  first  derived  from 
the  second.  Dictionaries  attribute  to  this  word  no 
less  than  fifteen  different  meanings,  the  principal 
of  which  are  immerse,  wash,  sprinkle,  purify,  and 
dye.  Amongst  these  various  imports,  Baptists  have 
arbitrarily  singled  out  one  which  suits  their  favorite 
practice,  and  they  assert  intrepidly  that  the  Greek 
word  has  but  one  meaning,  and  always  the  same, 
namely,  that  of  immerse.  At  this  many  exclaimed  ; 
but  then  the  great  champion  of  the  Baptists,  Dr. 
Carson,  has  declined  the  authority  of  all  Greek 
dictionaries,  because,  forsooth,  they  were  made  by 
Pedobaptists,  and  he  has  claimed  the  right  to  fix 
anew  the  meaning  of  the  word,  from  researches  in 
classical  authors.  This  demand  was  promptly  ac- 
ceded to,  and  the  Rev.  Robert  Wilson  in  England, 
and  the  Rev.  Edward  Beecher  in  America,  at  the 
same  time  published  each  a  volume  of  learned  re- 
searches on  the  disputed  word,  and  brought  forth 
an  overwhelming  array  of  passages  where  it  is  abso- 
lutely impossible  to  translate  it  by  immerse.  To 
give  an  instance  :  Homer,  describing  in  a  fable  a 
battle  between  the  frogs  and  a  mouse,  states  that 
the  latter  was  wounded,  and  that  "  the  lake  was 


42  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

baptized  with  its  blood,"  —  e^airreTO  ac/xarc  Xijxvq. 
It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  the  lake  might  have  been 
sprinkled  with  some  drops  of  blood,  possibly  even 
partially  dyed  with  it,  but  that  a  lake  could  have 
been  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse,  no  one  will 
believe. 

But  there  is  more  to  say.  A  close  investigation 
of  the  Greek  classics  shows  that  baptizo  never  has 
the  meaning  of  immerse,  without  implying  also  a 
permanent  submersion,  and  therefore  not  in  the 
least  a  Baptist  plunge.  Just  as  its  Latin  correlative 
immerge,  it  means,  sink  under  water  and  keep 
there,  that  is  to  say,  drown.  Let  us  quote  one 
instance.  The  historian  Josephus  narrates  that 
Herod,  wishing  to  murder  the  high-priest  Aristo- 
bulus  without  creating  suspicions,  gave  the  order 
to  secret  emissaries  to  baptize  him  while  bathing  in 
a  reservoir.  He  was  baptized,  indeed,  and  was  im- 
mersed, but  not  after  the  Baptist  fashion,  for  he 
was  immersed  by  being  kept  under  water  until 
drowned.  Thus  in  the  days  of  Herod  and  Jose- 
phus, that  is  to  say,  in  apostolical  times,  a  baptism 
by  immersion  was  understood  to  be  something 
similar  to  the  noyades  of  Nantes  during  the  French 
Revolution.  Baptism  by  immersion  must  have 
been  then  a  sentence  of  death,  which  the  Apostles 
would  not  have  inflicted  upon  the  affrighted  con- 
verts, when  they  did  not  intend  to  carry  it  out. 


IMMERSION.  43 

(Josephus,  De  Bello  Judaico,  i.  22,  §  2  ;  Antiq.  xv. 
3,  §  3.)  The  same  writer  speaks,  in  three  different 
places,  of  vessels  sunk  at  sea  as  having  been  bap- 
tized. Of  course  they  were  not  dipped  or  plunged, 
but  overwhelmed  and  immersed  so  as  not  to  rise 
again.  No  exception  has  yet  been  found  to  the 
rule,  that,  when  baptize  means  immerse,  it  implies 
a  permanent  immersion  or  drowning  ;  so  that  the 
distrust  thrown  upon  dictionaries  has  only  resulted 
in  showing  there  had  been  conceded  too  much  in 
allowing  that  baptizo  ever  had  in  a  single  instance 
the  Baptist  meaning.  This  fashion  of  attempting 
to  build  up  a  whole  doctrine  and  an  important 
practice  upon  the  mere  etymology  of  a  doubtful 
word  will  find  its  analogy  in  the  pedantry  of  a 
Chinese  mandarin,  who  would  teach  his  pupils  and 
assert  against  any  and  everybody  that  Englishmen 
eat  only  soup  for  the  last  meal  of  the  day,  proving 
it  triumphantly  from  the  undeniable  fact  that  the 
word  supper  comes  from  soup. 

Now  that  we  have  secured  our  position  on  classi- 
cal ground,  we  confess  that  we  really  care  little  to 
keep  it  or  defend  it,  and  that  we  have  followed  the 
discussion  on  that  field  only  on  the  principle  that 
it  is  sometimes  proper  "  to  answer  a  fool  according 
to  his  folly,  lest  he  be  wise  in  his  own  conceit." 
For  should  it  be  proved  a  thousand  times  over 
again,  that  in  classical  authors  baptize   meant  to 


44  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

plunge,  yet  it  would  by  no  means  follow  with -cer- 
tainty that  the  word  has  precisely  the  same  mean- 
ing in  Scripture.  The  sacred  writers,  obliged  to 
speak  the  language  of  heaven  through  a  heathen 
idiom,  have  been  compelled  to  modify  considerably 
the  import  of  several  Greek  words,  the  precise 
meaning  of  which  must  be  determined  hereafter, 
not  through  classical  paganism,  but  from  the  use 
of  them  in  Scripture  itself.  It  is  evident  that,  in 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament,  an  Apostle 
does  not  mean  exclusively,  with  the  classics,  an 
envoy ;  the  angel  is  no  longer  simply  a  messenger ; 
nor  is  the  Lord's  Supper  exactly  a  supper,  nor  the 
church  an  assembly,  nor  the  bishop  an  inspector, 
nor  the  elder  an  old  man,  nor  the  presbytery  a  lot 
of  superannuated  brethren,  nor  the  pastor  a  herds- 
man ;  let  us  add,  nor  is  baptism  a  Baptist  immer- 
sion, even  if  such  had  been  the  secular  sense  of  the 
word.  The  classical  language,  it  is  true,  supplied 
the  Apostles  with  a  basis,  a  starting-point,  but  the 
exact  Scriptural  sense  of  any  word,  and  especially 
baptizd,  must  be  ascertained  through  the  Bible 
itself,  —  through  the  religious  use  made  of  it  by 
the  sacred  writers,  —  and  it  is  there  alone  that  we 
proceed  to  investigate  it. 

§  20.    Meaning:  of  Baptize  in  the  Septuagint. — 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  language  of  the 


IMMERSION.  45 

New  Testament  is  based  upon  the  Greek  idiom  of  the 
Septuagint.  This  ancient  version  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  followed  by  the  Apostles,  and  they  place 
it  even  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  reason 
for  this  is  simple ;  the  Seventy  were  the  first  to 
bend  profane  Greek,  and  make  it  express  the  ideas 
of  the  Bible  ;  the  Apostles  were  bound  to  accept  the 
religious  idiom  created  by  their  predecessors,  and 
to  preserve  it  while  continuing  to  develop  it.  Let 
us,  therefore,  investigate  on  this  ground,  more  sure 
than  that  of  the  classics,  the  import  which  baptizo 
must  have  had  for  the  Apostles.  This  word  occurs 
but  four  times  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  no  case 
with  the  Baptist  meaning.  1st.  "  Judith  baptized 
herself  in  a  fountain  of  water,  by  the  camp."  (Ju- 
dith xii.  7.)  She  was  then  purifying  herself  from 
her  uncleanness  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
it  is  known  that  the  washing  prescribed  was  not  an 
immersion.  Moreover,  it  would  have  been  imprac- 
ticable for  a  woman  such  as  Judith  to  proceed  alone, 
and  bathe  herself  in  the  open  air,  in  the  midst 
of  a  camp  of  twenty  thousand  men,  much  less  still 
to  defile  by  a  bath  the  reservoir  from  which  they 
drank.  2d.  In  2  Kings  v.  14,  the  Seventy  trans- 
late, that  "  Naaman  baptized  himself  in  Jordan." 
It  is  true  that  our  version  says  of  this  baptism  that 
"  he  dipped  seven  times,"  and  that  the  Hebrew  ap- 
pears to  countenance  it.     But  the  context  shows 


46  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

that  the  baptism  was  performed  only  on  the  part  of 
the  body  affected  by  the  leprosy  (v.  11),  which 
could  be  dipped  without  constituting  aught  but  a 
partial  ablution  of  the  body  of  Naaman.  Moreover 
it  is  said  (v.  14)  that  he  did  according  to  the  word 
of  the  man  of  God ;  but  the  latter  had  simply 
enjoined  upon  him  to  wash  himself  seven  times 
(v.  10),  and  by  no  means  to  dip.  3d.  In  Isaiah 
xxi.  4,  we  read :  "  My  heart  panted,  fearfulness 
affrighted  me."  The  Septuagint  has  "  fearfulness 
baptized  me,"  which  means  overwhelmed  me,  surely 
not  dipped  me.  4th.  In  Eccles.  xxxiv.  25,  a  man 
defiled  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  baptizes  him- 
self according  to  the  law  of  Moses ;  this,  as  will  be 
seen  from  Numb,  xix.,  was  unquestionably  also  a 
baptism  by  sprinkling. 

The  word  baptizd  has  thus  nowhere  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint the  meaning  of  immerse.  The  evidence  is 
still  more  decisive  with  reference  to  the  analogous 
bapto.  In  Daniel  iv.  23,  33,  the  body  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar is  said  to  have  been  baptized  with  the 
dew  of  heaven.  We  ask  if  a  baptism  of  dew  is 
like  unto  sprinkling  or  immersion  ! 

Finally,  we  have  met  in  the  Septuagint  with  an 
admirable  passage,  which  seems  to  have  been  over- 
looked, which,  however,  brings  together  all  the  fam- 
ily of  Greek  words  relating  to  lustral  purifications, 
and  illustrates  and  fixes  the  relative  and  Scriptu- 


IMMERSION.  47 

ral  sense  of  each.  The  passage  is  Numb.  xix. 
13  -  20,  which  goes  into  all  the  details  pertaining 
to  the  purification  of  one  defiled  by  the  touch  of 
a  dead  body.  "  A  clean  person  (v.  18)  shall  take 
hyssop,  he  shall  baptize  it  (/Sa-v^ei)  in  the  water,  he 
shall  sprinkle  it  Qirepippavel')  upon  the  house,  the 
furniture,  and  all  the  persons  that  were  there,"  but 
especially  upon  him  who  touched  the  dead  body. 
"  On  the  seventh  day  he  shall  sprinkle  again  upon 
the  unclean,  who  shall  purify  himself  "  (a<yvt,%opbaty. 
Then  the  unclean  must  immerse  (irXweiv')  his 
clothes,  and  then  bathe  or  rather  wash  himself 
(Xovcrerac)  with  water.  Finally,  the  man  who  has 
not  been  sprinkled  has  not  been  purified  at  all 
(v.  20),  and  the  water  which  purifies  the  unclean 
is  called  by  the  Seventy  the  "  water  of  sprinkling  " 
(yScop  pavTicrfiov').  The  hyssop  itself  was  baptized 
in  order  to  serve  as  sprinkler,  which  means  that 
the  stem  of  the  plant  remained  dry  in  the  hand 
of  the  purifier,  while  the  other  end  alone,  which 
consisted  in  spongy  flowers,  was  impregnated  with 
water  in  order  to  sprinkle.  The  baptism  of  the 
hyssop  consisted  therefore  only  in  its  partial  contact 
with  water,  not  in  an  immersion  of  the  whole.  The 
hyssop  is  baptized,  the  unclean  is  sprinkled  upon, 
the  clothes  alone  are  immersed,  being  dipped  and 
held  under  water.  The  water  which  purifies  the 
unclean  is  a  water  of  sprinkling.     There  is  noth- 


48  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ing  wanting  to  fix  the  respective  meaning  of  these 
words.  The  Seventy,  finally,  in  another  passage, 
already  referred  to,  have  succeeded  in  giving  us  the 
most  complete  and  intense  light  upon  the  form  of 
baptism  which  could  possibly  be  desired,  by  inform- 
ing us  that  this  purification  by  sprinkling  upon  the 
unclean  from  contact  with  the  dead,  is  nothing  else 
but  a  baptism,  neither  more  nor  less.  They  tell  us 
expressly  in  Eccles.  xxxiv.  30,  that  such  a  man  is 
BAPTIZED  (/3a7TTt^o/ieyo9  airo  veKpov~).  The  proof' 
is  complete,  it  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired,  and  we 
should  not  know  what  to  add  to  it.  It  is  fully  es- 
tablished, that,  according  to  the  Septuagint,  to  bap- 
tize is  not  to  immerse,  but  to  sprinkle  with  water. 

§  21.  What  is  required  for  a  Proof  that  Im- 
mersion is  in  the  New  Testament.  —  After  the 
Septuagint  we  come  to  the  New  Testament.  There 
the  Baptists  are  bound  to  establish  three  points  with- 
out which  their  doctrine  cannot  stand.  1st.  That 
there  is  in  the  New  Testament  at  least  one  well  au- 
thenticated and  indisputable  case  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion. 2d.  That  there  is  not  one  single  case  of 
baptism  by  sprinkling,  for  that  one  case  would  justify 
the  Pedobaptist  practice.  3d.  That  any  change  in 
the  mode  of  applying  the  water  or  in  the  quantity 
used  invalidates  baptism  and  makes  it  of  no  effect, 
otherwise,  again,  sprinkling  might  be  allowed  as  a 


IMMERSION.  49 

convenient  substitute  for  immersion.  This  latter 
condition  of  the  Baptist  doctrine  is  rigorously  indis- 
pensable. For  if  some  one  should  attempt  to  prove 
from  the  Gospel  that  a  missionary  is  forbidden  to 
ride  in  a  carriage,  or  to  travel  with  a  carpet-bag,  or 
to  wear  shoes,  it  would  not  be  sufficient  to  show 
that  the  Apostles  went  on  foot,  without  shoes,  with- 
out baggage,  and  with  a  staff  only  ;  it  would  be 
necessary  still  to  prove  that  no  missionary  after 
them  can  do  otherwise  without  disobeying  a  Divine 
order.  Or,  again,  if  a  Lutheran  insisted  that  un- 
leavened bread  is  essential  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
that  the  sacrament  when  celebrated  without  such 
bread  is  null  and  void,  and  no  sacrament  at  all,  it 
would  require  more  than  the  easy  proof  that  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  used  unleavened  bread ;  it 
would  have  to  be  shown  besides,  that  there  is  such 
a  positive  command  not  to  use  any  other  bread,  that 
any  change  in  the  substance  of  the  latter  destroys 
the  sacrament. 

"We  shall  see  that  the  Baptists  are  still  worse  off 
than  the  above  Lutheran,  for  they  cannot  even 
prove  the  first  point,  much  less  the  two  others  ;  and 
we  shall  establish  that,  while  there  is  not  in  the 
New  Testament  a  single  certain  case  of  baptism 
by  immersion,  there  are  on  the  contrary  several 
decided  cases  of  baptism  that  took  place  otherwise. 
Let  us  pass  first  in  review  a  few  passages  where 
a  i> 


50  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  words  baptism  and  baptize  are  employed  in  the 
original,  but  have  been  translated  otherwise  in  the 
common  version. 

§22.   The  pretended  diverse  Immersions.  —  If 

we  are  to  credit  the  Baptist  version,  we  shall  find  in 
the  New  Testament  not  only  immersion,  but  what 
is  more  startling,  "  diverse  immersions."  (Heb.  ix. 
10.)  Let  some  one  explain  to  us  what  these  vari- 
ous kinds  of  immersion  can  be !  We  understood 
well  enough  the  old  version,  which  speaks  of 
"  diverse  washings."  For  we  can  conceive  some 
variety  in  the  partial  applications  of  water  ;  it  can 
be  poured  out,  or  sprinkled,  or  made  to  wash  this 
or  that  part  of  the  body.  But  can  one  imagine  a 
diversity  in  immersion  ?  The  moment  that  all  is 
dipped,  the  application  of  the  water  is  very  uni- 
form. Are  there  many  ways  of  sinking  in  water, 
or  of  drowning  ?  These  "  diverse  immersions  "  are 
about  as  easily  understood  as  diverse  straight  lines, 
or  diverse  perpendiculars  upon  a  given  point,  or 
the  diverse  centres  of  a  sphere  ;  it  is  simply  an 
absurdity  of  our  zealous  innovators,  which  they 
should  not  have  charged  to  the  Apostles.  If  they 
absolutely  wished  to  innovate,  they  could  have 
translated  "  diverse  baptisms,"  which  is  conformed 
to  the  original,  and  the  thirteenth  verse  would  have 
immediately  pointed  out  one  of  these  baptisms,  that 
of  the  unclean,  as  made  by  "  sprinkling." 


IMMERSION.  51 

The  same  must  be  said  of  the  pretended  "  im- 
mersions of  cups,  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  beds." 
The  original  speaks  here  of  baptisms  for  inanimate 
objects,  the  variety  of  which  is  well  understood  from 
the  law  of  Moses.  For,  these  objects  were  some- 
times sprinkled  (Numb.  xix.  18),  sometimes  plunged 
(Lev.  xi.  82),  without  taking  into  account  what 
the  Jewish  tradition  might  have  added,  the  law 
of  Moses  prescribing,  indeed,  in  some  cases,  the 
immersion  of  inanimate  objects,  without  ever  au- 
thorizing in  a  single  instance  that  of  persons.  We 
read  again,  in  Rev.  xix.  13,  "  He  was  clothed  in  a 
vesture  dipped  in  blood."  The  original  reads  here 
baptized,  but  the  Baptist  version  has  not  ventured 
to  translate  immersed,  but  dyed  in  blood.  In  truth, 
the  vesture  of  the  warrior  could  have  been  sprinkled 
in  the  battle  with  the  blood  of  the  enemy,  but  not 
immersed  in  it. 

§  23.  The  Immersion  of  the  Pharisees.  —  Fi- 
nally, if  baptize  means  invariably  immerse,  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  the  Pharisees  were  decidedly 
the  strongest  Baptists  that  ever  existed.  Not  con- 
tent with  immersing  their  furniture,  their  pots,  and 
their  beds  (j3cnrTUTfj,ov<;  kKivwv,  Mark  vii.  4),  they 
immersed  themselves  several  times  every  day.  For 
we  read  (Mark  vii.  4)  that  "  when  they  come  from 
market  they  eat  not  except  they  wash.'1''     "  Except 


52  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

they  baptize"  says  the  original.  "  Except  they  im- 
merse" says  the  Baptist  version.  And  Luke  (xi. 
38)  tells  us  that  "  the  Pharisee  marvelled  that  Je- 
sus had  not  first  iv ashed,  or  in  the  Greek  baptized 
himself,  or  in  the  Baptist  idiom,  immersed  himself, 
before  dinner."  If  the  baptism  of  water  was  an 
immersion,  we  can  scarcely  imagine  the  excessive 
difficulties  which  those  poor  people  must  have  daily 
met  with,  even  under  the  most  favorable  circum- 
stances, before  they  could  enjoy  their  dinner.  This 
perpetual  immersion,  this  aquatic  life,  must  have 
considerably  injured  the  health  of  some,  and  tired 
out  the  rest.  Then,  how  could  they  dine  at  all 
when  travelling  in  a  country  where  water  is  so 
scarce  as  Judaea  ?  Did  they  fast  every  time  they 
could  not  find  the  appliances  of  immersion  ?  In 
connection  with  this  habit,  the  Apostle  John  informs 
us  (ii.  6-8)  that  "  after  the  manner  of  the  puri- 
fying of  the  Jews,  there  were  in  the  nuptial  hall 
of  Cana  six  waterpots  of  stone,  containing  two  or' 
three  firkins  apiece  when  filled  up  to  the  brim." 
How  could  one  immerse  himself  in  such  vases ! 
No,  common  sense  as  well  as  Scripture  teaches  us 
that  this  baptism  before  the  repast  was  not  an  im- 
mersion, but  simply  a  washing,  which  consisted  in 
pouring  water  upon  the  hands,  as  in  2  Kings  iii.  11 ; 
Matt.  xv.  20.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  Church, 
however,  devout  Jews  and  Pharisees,  on  account 


IMMERSION.  53 

of  the  undue  importance  they  attached  to  their 
watery  ceremony,  were  generally  called  "  the  Bap- 
tists," fiaTTTtaTat,  in  distinction  from  Christians 
(see  Arrian  on  Epictetus,  II.  2 ;  also  Kitto,  Jour, 
of  Sacred  Litt.,  VI.  263).  This  is,  historically,  the 
oldest  use  of  the  name.  "  A  Baptist,"  in  those 
apostolical  times,  was  not  considered  a  Christian, 
but  a  Jew,  and  it  was  another  name  for  a  Pharisee. 

§  24.  John  the  Baptist  has  neither  prescribed 
nor  described  the  Mode  of  Baptism. —  In  all  the 

above  passages  which  we  have  just  examined,  we 
find  baptism  and  baptize  in  the  original,  but  not 
in  the  translation,  and  our  investigation  has  had, 
therefore,  to  follow  the  Greek  text.  We  come  now 
to  consider  another  class  of  passages,  where  all  the 
versions,  save  the  Baptist  Bible,  have  suffered  the 
original  expressions  to  stand. 

We  begin  with  the  first  baptisms  that  are  men- 
tioned in  the  Gospel,  those  which  John  the  Baptist 
performed,  and  which  are  reckoned  by  the  thou- 
sand ;  for  he  baptized  multitudes.  It  is  certainly 
here,  at  its  very  origin,  if  ever,  that  we  should  ex- 
pect a  description  of  the  ceremony  which  will  leave 
no  doubt  upon  the  mode  of  baptism.  But  one  is 
surprised  to  meet  in  the  Gospel  with  no  positive 
information  on  this  point.  It  is  easy,  however,  to 
understand  the  reason  for  this.     Moses  had  estab- 


54  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

lished  "  diverse  baptisms  "  (Heb.  ix.  10),  namely, 
an  immersion  for  some  inanimate  objects,  vessels, 
pots,  and  soiled  garments  (Lev.  xi.  32),  and  a 
baptism  by  sprinkling  for  all  the  rest,  especially 
for  persons  (Numb.  xix.  18).  The  whole  Jewish 
people  perfectly  understood  both  the  idea  and  the 
mode  of  baptism  ;  they  knew  that  it  was  an  exter- 
nal purification  for  sin  and  uncleanness,  and  that 
its  mode  consisted  in  a  partial  washing.  They 
knew,  moreover,  that  the  prophets,  in  predicting 
the  times  of  the  New  Covenant,  had  announced 
that  God  would  purify  his  people,  not  by  plunging 
them  into  the  water,  but  by  "  sprinkling "  clean 
water  upon  them  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  25)  ;  and  this  is 
why  it  is  unnecessary  for  John  to  explain  his  bap- 
tism, and  also  why  the  Gospel  does  not  deem  it 
appropriate  to  repeat  what  the  Old  Testament  has 
already  taught,  at  length  and  in  detail ;  for  the 
New  Testament,  in  all  its  pages,  supposes  an  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Old.  If  it  were  otherwise,  if 
John  the  Baptist  had  introduced  a  new  doctrine,  or 
a  new  ceremony,  he  was  bound  to  explain  it  and  fix 
its  mode.  Indeed,  the  Gospel  would  be  a  very  im- 
perfect and  incomplete  book,  if  it  had  prescribed 
to  us  a  practice  new  and  unknown,  without  care- 
fully describing  it  ;  and  we  could  then,  with  a 
good  conscience,  dispense  altogether  with  its  observ- 
ance. 


IMMERSION.  65 

§  25.  The  Waters  of  Enon.  —  The  Baptists, 
nevertheless,  have  thought  to  find  a  proof  that 
John  baptized  by  immersion  in  the  fact  that 
"  John  baptized  at  Enon,  because  there  was  much 
water  there."  (John  iii.  23.)  "What  can  be 
the  use,"  they  say,  "  of  much  water,  unless  to 
immerse  ?  "  But  let  us  reflect  for  a  moment  that 
John  dwelt  in  the  desert,  that  he  was  surrounded 
by  immense  crowds,  by  a  considerable  camp,  and 
let  it  be  asked,  "Was  it  not  necessary,  if  only  to 
quench  the  thirst  of  the  people,  that  he  should 
choose  a  place  in  the  desert  where  there  was  much 
water  ?  Add  to  this,  that  these  Jews  practised 
daily  the  Mosaic  ablutions,  and  that  the  baptism  of 
John,  even  if  performed  by  sprinkling,  was  never- 
theless a  partial  washing,  and  we  have  more  than 
sufficient  to  explain  that  "  much  water,"  without 
having  recourse  to  immersion.  In  any  desert 
there  is  always  a  scarcity  of  water,  and  what  is 
considered  in  such  a  region  as  much  water  would 
not  be  reckoned  as  such  in  other  places.  When 
the  Israelites  wandered  in  the  desert,  did  they 
not  always  establish  their  camp,  from  preference,  in 
the  place  where  there  was  the  most  water,  and 
must  we  conclude  from  this  that  they  immersed 
themselves  ?  For  the  rest,  if  our  explanation  does 
not  satisfy,  we  could  easily  do  without  it.  It  is 
in  fact  perhaps  superfluous,  for  there  is  really  no 


66  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

mention  mado  in  the  original  of  "  much  water," 
but  of  "  several  waters,"  vScnd  7roXXa,  which  can 
mean  nothing  else  than  "  several  springs."  This 
passage  of  John  is  perfectly  analogous  to  that  of 
Exodus  xv.  27  :  "  They  came  to  Elim,  where  were 
twelve  wells  of  water,  and  they  encamped  there 
by  the  waters."  Let  us  make  haste  to  add,  that 
they  did  not  immerse  themselves  in  these  wells. 
Under  any  circumstances,  the  fact  that  there  was 
much  water  at  Enon  no  more  proves  that  the 
people  were  immersed,  than  the  fact  that  there 
was  much  wine  in  Cana  proves  that  the  disciples 
became  intoxicated. 

§  26.  A  Half-Million  baptized  by  John. — Fi- 
nally, let  us  take  up  as  a  whole  the  details  of  the 
baptism  of  John,  and  we  shall  find  out,  by  a  thor- 
ough critical  examination  of  the  text,  that  he  cer- 
tainly did  not  immerse  when  he  baptized.  We  are 
told  (Matt.  iii.  5,  6),  that  "  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judaea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan, 
went  out  to  him,  and  were  baptized  of  him." 
Surely,  here  are  plenty  of  people  baptized ;  let 
us  fix  somewhat  the  number  of  the  population 
indicated  in  these  words.  It  was  all  Jerusalem, 
and  all  Judaea,  and  more  still,  that  is  to  say,  an 
extensive  and  populous  region.  History  relates 
that  some  years  later  there  perished  no  less  than. 


IMMERSION.  57 

eleven  hundred  thousand  persons  at  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem.  Josephus  tells  us  further,  that  thirty- 
five  years  after  the  death  of  Christ  there  were 
in  Jerusalem  at  the  Feast  of  the  Passover  three 
millions  of  persons.  These  data  suppose  in  the 
region  indicated  by  the  Gospel  a  probable  popu- 
lation of  six  millions  of  souls.  But  in  order  to 
place  ourselves  in  a  quite  safe  position,  let  us  be 
satisfied  with  the  half  of  this  number,  and  say  three 
millions.  Then  let  us  suppose  again,  that,  of  this 
whole  population,  one  sixth  only  went  to  listen  to 
John  and  be  baptized  by  him.  This  is  a  very 
modest  valuation,  since  the  text  says,  that  all  the 
inhabitants  of  this  region  went,  and  we  remain, 
doubtless,  below  the  truth.  Well,  this  sixth  forms 
a  total  of  five  hundred  thousand  persons.  By  mak- 
ing them  defile  in  a  procession,  two  by  two,  they 
would  form  a  column  over  a  hundred  miles  long. 

§  27.    More    than    Herculean    Labor    of   the 

Forerunner.  —  All  this  crowd  was  baptized  by  a 
single  man  !  To  form  some  idea  of  this  undertak- 
ing, let  us  say  something  of  the  manual  labors  to 
which  immersion  compels  the  baptizer.  First,  it  is 
well  understood  that  the  candidate  ought  not  to 
baptize  himself,  but  he  is  to  be  baptized  by  another. 
He  must  be  in  the  arms  of  the  baptist  operator,  like 
an  inert  and  dead  body  which  is  going  to  be  buried 

3* 


58  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

in  water.  It  becomes  requisite  to  throw  him  back- 
wards, to  submerge  him  under  the  water,  and  raise 
him  again  to  his  first  position.  Immersion  sup- 
poses, therefore,  in  the  operator  a  considerable  mus- 
cular effort,  and  this  the  more,  because,  in  the  water 
up  to  his  waist,  he  does  not  feel  steady,  and  his  pow- 
ers are  partly  paralyzed.  Let  us  besides  say  some- 
thing of  the  time  which  John  the  Baptist  had  at  his 
disposal  for  accomplishing  this  formidable  labor. 
He  had  already  finished  baptizing  the  people,  when 
he  baptized  Jesus.  (Luke  iii.  21.)  The  Lord  was 
then  just  thirty  years  old,  and  John  six  months 
older  than  lie.  We  see  by  Numbers  iv.  3,  47  that 
the  Jewish  priests  did  not  enter  upon  their  duties 
before  the  age  of  thirty.  It  was  the  time  when  John, 
himself  son  of  a  priest,  must  have  commenced  his 
ministry,  —  he  could  not  do  it  before,  —  and  Jesus 
commenced  at  the  same  age.  The  official  career 
of  the  Forerunner  and  his  baptizing  are  then  limited 
to  a  period  of  six  months.  Another  independent 
proof  of  this  fact  is  obtained  from  Luke  iii.  1  -  8  ; 
where  we  are  told  that  John  did  not  begin  to  bap- 
tize until  the  loth  year  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  which  is 
equivalent  to  the  29th  after  the  birth  of  Christ. 
Add  now  the  six  months  by  which  John  was  older 
than  Christ,  and  you  find  that  he  was  thirty  years 
old  when  he  began  to  baptize,  which  until  the  time 
when  Jesus  was  himself  of  the  same  age  makes  ex- 


IMMERSION.  59 

actly  six  months.  Six  months  only  to  immerse  five 
hundred  thousand  people !  He  did  not  perform 
miracles  (John  x.  41),  and  was  therefore,  in  the 
manual  labor  of  baptism,  reduced  to  his  own 
strength,  and  limited,  like  every  other  human 
being,  by  his  capacity  for  enduring  fatigue. 

See  him  at  his  work.  He  commences  baptizing, 
and  admit,  that  on  the  first  day,  by  a  great  effort, 
he  succeeds  in  immersing  one  hundred.  But  at 
this  rate,  and  supposing  that  he  works  constantly, 
without  the  intermission  of  a  single  day,  without 
even  resting  on  the  Sabbath,  more  than  fifteen  years 
are  required  to  baptize  his  half-million.  Even 
then,  where  should  he  take  the  time  to  preach  and 
to  fulfil  the  religious  duties  of  the  law  of  Moses  ? 
"Well !  concede  to  him  rest  from  immersion  for  the 
Sabbath  day  only,  and  make  him  work  all  the  other 
days  without  exception,  and  you  will  find  that  in 
order  to  baptize  his  half-million  within  six  months, 
he  should  have  immersed  at  least  three  thousand  two 
hundred  each  day !  Can  you  conceive  such  a  man- 
ual labor  ?  Do  you  reckon  that,  according  to  the 
Baptist  view,  there  were  no  children  there,  nothing 
but  adults,  and  that  each  must  have  weighed  on 
the  average  at  least  120  pounds,  a  burden  which  at 
each  baptism  had  first  to  be  thrown  back,  then 
dipped,  then  raised  again  under  the  most  fatiguing 
and  unfavorable  circumstances  ?    It  was  a  total  bur- 


60  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

den  of  384,000  pounds  which  John  had  to  carry 
in  his  arms  a  first  time  to  bury  it  in  the  water,  and 
a  second  time  to  raise  it  up,  or  altogether  a  total 
of  768,000  pounds  to  lift  daily,  while  sunk  up  to 
his  waist  in  water,  and  staggering  in  the  current 
of  Jordan.  This  is  equivalent  exactly  to  384  tons, 
the  load  of  a  ship,  which  John  the  Baptist  raised  each 
day  without  expiring  under  the  task,  and  he  per- 
formed alone  the  work  of  a  hundred  robust  porters. 
Here  is,  certainly,  a  view  of  baptism  far  from 
spiritual,  but  one  is  bound,  both  by  the  facts  and 
by  the  logic  of  numbers,  to  adopt  it,  if  baptism 
must  absolutely  be  an  immersion.  John  the  Bap- 
tist, then,  is  nothing  else  but  a  thaumaturgist,  who 
has  surpassed  the  labors  of  Hercules,  and  whose 
heroic  baptisms  are  worthy  of  figuring  amongst  the 
miracles  of  the  breviary. 

§  28.  Impossible  Scene  of  the  Three  Thou- 
sand immersed. — We  shall  follow  a  similar  line  of 
argument  in  reference  to  the  three  thousand  who 
were  baptized  by  the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem.  (Acts 
ii.  41.)  They  were  all  baptized  "  the  same  day,"  and 
even  in  the  course  of  a  few  hours  of  that  day,  since 
a  part  of  it  had  already  been  spent  in  preaching  to 
the  multitudes,  and  their  baptism  was  a  result  of 
this  preaching.  If  this  baptism  took  place  by  im- 
mersion, it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the  mission 


IMMERSION.  61 

of  the  Apostles  consisted  essentially  in  a  manual  la- 
bor of  the  most  overwhelming  kind.  Supposing  that 
the  twelve  had  all  been  present,  and  all  vigorous 
enough  to  work  in  the  water,  they  would  have  had 
on  an  average  to  immerse  each  two  hundred  and 
fifty  persons  without  stop  or  rest.  It  was  for  each 
a  load  of  three  hundred  quintals  to  carry  twice,  or 
six  hundred  quintals  of  human  flesh  to  lift  in  the 
space  of  a  few  hours.  Imagination  draws  back  be- 
fore the  magnitude  of  the  performance.  The  Bap- 
tists have  consequently  made  an  hypothesis  which 
they  would  give  us  as  a  certainty,  namely,  that  the 
disciples  of  the  little  Church  at  Jerusalem  have 
aided  the  Apostles,  and  baptized  with  them.  But 
this  renders  the  thing  only  more  ridiculous,  more 
incredible,  and  more  unworthy  of  the  Gospel.  Sup- 
pose, indeed,  the  Apostles  incapable  of  performing 
their  manual,  or,  as  we  might  say,  carnal  labor  of 
immersion,  and  calling  to  their  assistance  all  the 
other  disciples.  Picture  to  yourself,  then,  the  whole 
Apostolate,  and  the  whole  Church  of  Jerusalem, 
sunk  all  the  afternoon  in  water  up  to  the  waist, 
and  at  times  up  to  the  neck,  in  order  to  grasp  in 
their  arms  the  bodies  of  three  thousand  men,  to 
throw  them  back,  immerse  them,  and  place  them 
upright  again  !  How  could  these  disciples,  so  poor, 
so  few  in  number  that  they  met  in  an  upper  cham- 
ber which  could  hold  thorn  all,  dispose,  in  a  city 


62  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

occupied  by  their  enemies,  of  such  a  bathing  estab- 
lishment, changes  of  dress,  halls  for  dressing  and 
undressing  ?  When  previously  their  Master  had 
sent  them  to  preach  and  to  baptize,  he  had  enjoined 
upon  them  not  to  carry  two  coats.  How  then  did 
they  perform  immersion  ?  Did  they  keep  on  wet 
clothes  all  day,  or  did  they  undress  and  officiate 
without  garments  at  each  baptism  ?  Indeed,  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  in  order  to  practise  a  Scriptu- 
ral immersion,  did  not  allow  any  garments  to  be  worn 
at  baptism,  not  even  by  women.  They  would  im- 
merse only  the  naked  individual,  but  not  his  clothes, 
which  fact  is  fully  admitted  by  Dr.  Carson.  Indeed, 
who  would  think  of  purifying  his  hands  even  sym- 
bolically by  putting  on  gloves  to  wash  them.  But 
no  ;  the  absurdity  is  too  gross,  too  glaring  ;  and  it 
must  be  owned  that  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that 
either  John  the  Baptist  or  the  Apostles  should  have 
ever  immersed  ;  it  was  only  a  baptism  by  sprinkling 
or  affusion  which  they  could  have  given. 

§  29.    The  Baptism  of  the  Eunuch  was  not  an 

Immersion.  —  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  is  the 
great  war-engine  of  immersionists.  So  much  is  this 
the  case,  that  their  great  champion,  Dr.  Carson, 
writes :  "  The  man  who  can  read  this  passage  (i.  e. 
Acts  viii.  36  -  39),  and  not  see  immersion  in  it,  must 
have  something  in  his  mind  unfavorable  to  the  in- 


IMMERSION.  63 

vestigation  of  truth.  As  long  as  I  fear  God,  I  can- 
not, for  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  resist  the 
evidence  of  this  single  document.  Nay,  had  I  no 
more  conscience  than  Satan  himself,  I  could  not, 
as  a  scholar,  attempt  to  expel  immersion  from  this 
account.  All  the  ingenuity  of  all  the  critics  in 
Europe  could  not  silence  the  evidence  of  this  pas- 
sage. Amidst  the  most  violent  perversion  that  it 
can  sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry  out,  Immer- 
sion, immersion ! "  (Carson,  p.  128.)  Alas  !  that 
the  threat  of  a  Baptist  curse  and  the  impending 
danger  of  passing  for  a  confederate  of  Satan  should 
have  failed  to  make  us  perceive  a  single  gleam  of 
immersion  in  this  passage  !  But  let  us  produce  our 
reasons  after  first  quoting  the  text :  — 

"  And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto 
a  certain  water  ;  and  the  eunuch  said,  See,  here  is 
water  ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  .  .  .  . 
And  he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still ;  and 
they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when 
they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,"  etc.  (Acts 
viii.  36-39.) 

Preconceived  ideas  have  an  astonishing  hold  on  the 
imagination,  which  may  explain  why  both  Baptists 
and  Pedobaptists  in  reading  this  account  see  Philip 
and  the  eunuch  standing  upon  the  margin  of  a 
pool  of  water,  and  preparing  to  walk  down  into  it. 


64  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

But  there  is  nothing  of  this  in  the  text.  True, 
"  they  go  down,"  but  from  whence  do  they  go  down, 
—  from  the  edge  of  the  water,  from  the  shore  of  a 
pond  ?  Not  at  all.  They  go  down  from  where  they 
were  when  they  halted,  namely,  from  the  chariot. 
The  text  says  positively  that  Philip  had  first  "  come 
up  "  on  the  chariot  (v.  31)  before  he  went  down. 
We  must  not  add  to  the  text  by  making  them 
come  down  twice,  once  from  the  chariot  to  the  road, 
and  a  second  time  from  the  dry  ground  into  the 
water,  nor  must  we  make  them  go  up  twice  in  the 
inverse  order,  for  there  is  but  one  descent  and  one 
ascent.  Where  was  the  chariot  when  they  stopped  ? 
Right  over  the  water,  rfkdov  ktrl  n  vScop.  To  be 
correct,  the  translation  should  not  read  they  came 
unto,  but  over,  a  certain  water.  The  chariot  was 
being  driven  through  some  pool  of  water,  when  they 
stopped  in  the  very  midst  of  it.  The  pool  of  course 
could  not  be  deep,  since  they  drove  through  it,  and, 
moreover,  it  contained  but  "  a  little  water,"  ti  vBcop. 
They  alighted  from  the  chariot  direct  into  the  water, 
and  went  up  again  from  it  into  the  chariot.  This 
descent  from  the  chariot  and  ascent  into  it  again  is 
the  only  one  mentioned  in  the  text,  and  can  have 
no  reference  whatever  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  of 
which  it  formed  no  part,  and  about  which  there  is 
nothing  said  or  hinted  here. 

This  view,  however,  which  we  hold  to  be  the  only 


IMMERSION.  65 

one  conformed  to  the  text,  is  not  essential  to  our  pur- 
pose, and  we  are  prepared  to  give  to  the  Baptists  the 
benefit  of  the  usual  idea  implying  two  descents  and 
two  ascents.  Let  us  agree,  therefore,  that  they  first 
come  down  from  the  chariot  and  then  walk  to  the 
edge  of  the  water.  Now,  according  to  our  version, 
they  go  down  into  the  water.  The  Greek  et?  means 
just  as  well  to  or  unto  the  water,  as  in  Matt.  xv.  24, 
xxii.  4,  for  it  is  met  in  Scripture  no  less  than  538 
times  with  this  latter  sense.  Afterwards  they  come 
up  out  of  the  water  ;  the  Greek  e/e  is  found  119 
times  in  Scripture  meaning  from,  against  89  that  it 
means  out  of.  In  the  analogous  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ  (Matt.  hi.  16),  the  preposition  used  is  cltto, 
which  means  only  from,  and  not  out  of  the  water. 
The  most  probable  meaning  would  then  be,  that,  in 
order  to  perform  a  baptism,  they  walked  to  the  water 
and  after  from  it.  But  both  meanings  being  justified 
as  far  as  the  Greek  prepositions  are  concerned,  the 
Baptists  might  choose  theirs,  and  we  by  the  same 
right  might  adopt  ours,  according  to  which  the  two 
personages  would  have  merely  proceeded  close  to 
the  water  without  going  down  into  it.  It  is  quite 
enough,  at  any  rate,  that  the  passage  should  be  sus- 
ceptible of  a  construction  different  from  that  of  the 
Baptists,  to  prevent  its  being  used  as  a  proof  for 
immersion,  and  strictly  we  are  not  required  to  pro- 
ceed with  this  discussion  any  further.     But  we  feel 


66  THE   BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

strong  enough  on  other  points  of  the  passage,  to 
make  to  the  Baptists  another  gratuitous  concession 
and  yet  refute  them  on  their  own  ground.  Let  us 
admit,  therefore,  for  a  while,  that,  in  order  to  be 
baptized,  Philip  with  the  eunuch,  and  even  Jesus 
with  John  the  Baptist,  have  really  all  gone  down 
into  the  water,  and  that  they  came  out  of  it,  and 
we  shall  still  ask,  Where  do  you  see  the  immersion? 
There  are  in  every  case  of  immersion  three  succes- 
sive and  very  distinct  acts  :  —  1st.  The  minister  and 
the  candidate  both  walk  down  into  the  water.  2d. 
The  immersion  takes  places.  3d.  They  come  out 
of  the  water.  Reading  our  text  with  all  docility, 
and  translating  exactly  as  our  Baptist  friends  would 
have  us,  we  see  the  first  and  the  third  acts  men- 
tioned, but  as  to  the  immersion  itself  not  a  word  of 
it.  The  coming  into  the  water  and  out  of  it  are 
not  the  baptism  itself,  but  only  concomitant  circum- 
stances. Once  in  the  water,  did  Philip  plunge  the 
eunuch,  or  pour  water  upon  him  with  his  hand  ? 
There  is  not  a  single  word  on  the  mode  of  baptism 
in  the  very  passage  which,  above  all  others,  was  to 
prove  immersion  !  It  is  very  like  the  tragedy  of 
Hamlet  with  the  part  of  Hamlet  omitted. 

But  such  is  the  utter  weakness  of  the  Baptist 
view  of  this,  their  best  passage,  that  we  can  afford 
to  proceed  from  concession  to  concession,  to  grant 
them  all  they  ask ;  surrender  freely  all  the  positions 


IMMERSION.  67 

we  have  gained,  and  yet  defeat  them.  Granted, 
then,  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  fairly  described 
or  implied  in  these  expressions,  "  They  went  down 
into  the  water  and  out  of  it."  We  shall  still  ask, 
Where  is  the  promised  immersion  ?  They  have 
gone  down  into  the  water.  Very  well ;  but  how 
deep  have  they  gone  into  it  ?  That  is  the  question. 
Did  they  bury  and  submerge  themselves  ?  Did 
they  put  the  head  under  water  ?  Decidedly  not. 
The  narrative  affirms  most  positively  the  contrary, 
for  it  says  that  both  the  baptizer  and  the  baptized 
went  down  together,  and  alike  into  the  water.  It 
does  not  make  the  one  go  deeper  than  the  other. 
But  Philip  was  not  immersed  ;  neither,  therefore, 
was  the  eunuch.  They  both  went  down  into  the 
water,  but  not  under  the  water.  Baptists  add  to 
Scripture  the  dreams  of  their  imagination,  when 
they  make  the  eunuch  go  deeper  into  the  water 
than  Philip,  when  they  lead  one  of  them  into  and 
the  other  under  the  water. 

It  is  known  that  the  Jews  wore  a  short  robe, 
went  about  with  naked  legs  and  bare  feet  resting 
on  sandals.  This  attire  enabled  them  to  wade 
through  water  without  inconvenience,  and  even 
with  pleasure.  The  eunuch  and  Philip  were  rid- 
ing in  the  desert,  where  water  is  always  scarce,  for 
there  is  not  a  single  stream  of  water  between  Jeru- 
salem and  Gaza  ;  they  pass  over  a  place  where  they 


68  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

notice  "  some  water,"  n  vBcop.  The  water  always 
runs  into  the  lowest  spots  ;  in  the  desert  it  will 
be  found  in  holes  and  in  the  bed  of  ravines.  If  the 
chariot  was  not  actually  driving  through  the  water, 
the  two  personages  would  have,  of  course,  to  walk 
down  to  get  at  the  water,  and  walk  up  again.  They 
have  no  vessel  in  readiness  to  draw  from  the  shal- 
low water,  they  walk  therefore  into  it,  Philip  stoops, 
takes  water  up  in  his  hands,  and  pours  it  over  the 
head  of  his  companion.  Such  is  the  only  explana- 
tion consistent  with  the  text,  for  there  is  no  means 
of  there  introducing  immersion,  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  some  portion  of  the  narrative.  Our  de- 
scription of  this  baptism  agrees  with  the  oldest 
sculptures  and  mosaics  representing  the  baptism 
of  Jesus  Christ,  such  as  those  of  Beneventum  and 
Ravenna.  The  numerous  pictures  and  sculptures 
found  in  the  catacombs  of  Rome,  and  which  date 
from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church,  are  also  unan- 
imous for  this  form  of  baptism.  They  represent 
Jesus  standing  in  water,  and  John  the  Baptist  on 
dry  ground,  pouring  from  the  hollow  of  his  hand 
water  over  the  head  of  the  Saviour. 

The  importance  Baptists  attach  to  this  passage 
is  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  offering  a  simpler  and 
more  popular  method  of  showing  that  it  contains 
no  vestige  of  immersion.  Let  us  apply  its  words  to 
something  else  than  baptism,  and  transfer  them  to 


IMMERSION.  69 

the  regions  of  common  life,  where  experience  and 
common  sense  may  more  easily  avail.  An  Egyptian 
reads  the  narrative  of  a  journey  through  Russia. 
Two  travellers  are  described  as  driving  together  in 
a  sleigh  ;  in  a  certain  place  they  stop,  and  alighting, 
they  went  down  both  into  the  snow,  and  afterwards 
came  up  out  of  the  snow  into  the  sleigh.  As  will 
be  noticed,  these  are  exactly  the  Scriptural  expres- 
sions, as  translated  by  Baptists  ;  nothing  is  changed 
except  that  snow  is  placed  instead  of  water.  Now 
what  a  miserable  pedant  would  this  African  be 
held,  if  he  were  stanchly  to  assert,  against  any  and 
everybody,  that  the  two  travellers  did  both  certainly 
then  and  there  plunge,  dip,  and  immerse  themselves 
heels  over  head  into  the  snow  !  But  what  need 
have  we  to  speak  of  snow  ;  let  us  return  to  the 
water.  Every  time  that  a  man  fords  a  brook  or  a 
stream  he  invariably  goes  down  into  the  water,  and 
again  comes  up  out  of  the  water,  —  and  for  all  this 
he  has  neither  been  plunged  nor  immersed.  Why 
then  talk  of  the  fanciful  immersion  of  the  eunuch  ? 
In  investigating  this  passage,  we  have  made  to  the 
Baptists  many  unnecessary  concessions  ;  we  have 
complacently  followed  after  the  shadow  of  immer- 
sion in  all  the  paths,  real  or  imaginary,  which  were 
pointed  out  to  us  ;  yet  we  cannot  grasp  the  phan- 
tom. Look  at  it  in  the  face  and  it  vanishes,  it  is 
nowhere  to  be  found.     We  have  conceded  much, 


70  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

but  there  is  one  thing  which  we  cannot  absolutely 
concede,  and  that  is  adding  to  the  Word  of  God 
the  dreams  of  sectarian  imagination  ! 

§  30.  The  Fishes  of  Tertullian. — Tertullian, 
at  least,  quotes  a  much  stronger  passage  in  behalf  of 
immersion,  and  it  is  singular  that  our  modern  Bap- 
tists should  have  declined  to  take  advantage  of  it. 
Basing  himself  on  these  words  of  our  Lord  to  his 
disciples,  "  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men,"  (Matt, 
iv.  19,)  he  concludes  that,  in  order  to  be  saved 
through  baptism,  the  Christian  must  commence  by 
making  himself  a  fish  in  the  water.  (De  Baptis- 
mo,  II.  2.)  This  picturesque  argument  should, 
however,  rather  teach  that  the  sinner  must  be 
plucked  away  from  the  state  of  immersion,  which 
here  figures  sin,  and  that,  once  converted,  great 
care  should  be  taken  not  to  bring  him  back  to  it, 
as  would  the  Baptists. 

§  31.  Baptist  Immersion  is  a  Parody  of  the 
Burial  of  Jesus  Christ.  —  The  last  passage  in  be- 
half of  immersion,  which  we  have  to  consider,  is 
that  of  Rom.  vi.  2-5,  with  its  parallels,  Gal.  iii.  26, 
27,  and  Col.  ii.  11,  12,  where  mention  is  made  of 
"  being  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  into  death." 
We  have  already  shown,  while  treating  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  (§  4),  that  it  is  impossible 


IMMERSION.  71 

to  apply  these  passages  to  water-baptism,  since  it 
would  imply  that  it  is  the  ceremony  which  saves 
us,  sanctifies  us,  and  accomplishes  within  us  all 
the  work  of  God.  We  need  not  explain  again 
this  spiritual  sense,  which  is  so  evident,  but  we  will 
trace  out  some  of  the  revolting  absurdities  involved 
in  the  carnal  interpretation  forced  on  these  words. 
With  the  simple  and  ignorant,  who  cannot  raise 
their  eyes  above  the  water  of  baptism,  and  who,  like 
certain  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  seem  to  ignore 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  this  passage  appears 
most  conclusive  for  immersion.  They  do  not  per- 
ceive that  the  above  texts  describe  this  baptism, 
which  causes  us  to  die  with  Christ,  under  four  fig- 
ures, —  "a  burial,  a  plant,  a  garment,  and  a  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands"  ;  that  these  figures 
must  all  share  the  same  fate,  be  either  all  spiritual- 
ized or  all  materialized ;  and  that  it  is  an  impious 
conceit  to  practise  only  one  of  them  while  rejecting 
the  others.  Romanists  are  more  scrupulous  here 
than  Baptists,  for  they  materialize  at  least  two,  the 
burial  and  the  garment,  and,  in  order  better  to  con- 
form to  Scripture,  array  the  neophyte  in  a  white 
robe.  Moreover,  while  we  are  told  but  twice  to  be 
buried  with  Christ,  we  are  enjoined  no  less  than 
five  times  to  be  crucified  with  him.  (Gal.  ii.  20, 
v.  24,  etc.)  Consequently  some  fanatics,  such  as 
Maria  Peters   and  others,  trusting   to  the   carnal 


72  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

interpretation  of  Baptists,  have  caused  themselves 
to  be  crucified  in  obedience  to  God.  "  The  holy 
Catharine  of  Sienna"  underwent  also  by  a  miracle 
a  similar  crucifixion.  It  is  again  by  following  this 
same  Baptist  sense  that  Romanists  do  not  perform 
their  devotions  without  a  cross  ;  that  they  walk  on 
their  knees,  and  through  twelve  stations,  the  via 
cruris,  the  "  path  of  the  cross,"  which  ends  by  bury- 
ing one's  self  in  the  tomb  with  Christ.  They  crucify 
themselves  much  more  than  the  Baptists  bury  them- 
selves, and  they  bring  forth  for  their  crucifixion  an 
array  of  passages  far  more  plausible  and  imposing 
than  those  adduced  for  immersion.  Even  in  their 
baptism,  Romanists  carry  out  the  idea  of  burial 
with  greater  conformity  to  the  letter  of  Scripture 
than  Baptists.  In  obedience  to  these  words  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  "  For  that  she  hath  poured  this  ointment 
on  my  body,  she  did  it  for  my  burial,"  (Matt.  xxvi. 
12,)  they  practise  in  baptism  an  unction  of  oil  over 
the  head,  and  they  think  that  if  a  sprinkling  of  oil 
implied  sufficiency  for  the  Lord  a  symbol  of  burial, 
a  sprinkling  of  water  will  also  do  the  same.  If  in 
addition  they  make  the  sign  of  the  cross  over  the 
person  baptized,  it  comes  from  their  anxiety  to 
leave  out  nothing  which  is  best  adapted  to  symbol- 
ize in  material  figures  a  death  and  burial  with  the 
crucified  Saviour.  Are  the  Baptists  as  scriptural  as 
Romanists  in  their  theatrical  representation  of  the 
death  of  Christ  ? 


IMMERSION.  73 

"We  utterly  deny  that  immersion  has  any  analogy 
with  the  burial  of  Christ,  unless  as  a  parody  and 
profanation  of  a  holy  thing.  The  truth  is,  that 
after  his  death,  the  body  of  our  Saviour  was  em- 
balmed, wrapped  in  a  shroud,  carried  inside  of  a 
vault  hewn  out  of  the  rock,  and  either  stretched  on 
a  level  with  the  floor,  or  rather  raised  up  in  a  niche. 
Baptists,  on  the  contrary,  would  have  the  people  be- 
lieve that  he  was  buried  according  to  modern  fash- 
ion deeply  underground,  which  is  false.  And  yet, 
on  the  ignorance  of  such  a  plain  scriptural  fact 
rests  all  their  ceremony  of  immersion.  Moreover, 
had  the  body  of  Christ  been  let  down  into  the 
ground  and  covered  with  earth,  where  is  the  anal- 
ogy between  burial  and  immersion  ?  Sprinkling 
comes  much  nearer  to  it.  At  a  funeral  the  bury- 
ing element  is  always  thrown  upon  the  body,  and 
thus  alone  is  it  buried.  The  water,  therefore, 
should  be  applied  to  the  body,  and  not  the  body 
to  the  water.  The  sprinkling  or  affusion  of  water 
might  represent  burial,  but  immersion  never  will. 
The  Baptist  minister  and  the  candidate  both  pro- 
ceed down  into  the  water.  But  is  it  usual  for  those 
who  bury  the  dead  to  half  entomb  themselves  in  the 
grave  with  the  corpse  ?  Our  Saviour  was  buried 
for  three  days,  the  Baptists  do  not  bury  for  three 
seconds.  The  idea  of  sepulture  implies  at  least 
some  duration,  but  a  rapid  plunge  not  only  has  not 


74  THE    BAPTISM    OF    WATER. 

the  slightest  analogy  with  a  burial,  but  stands  in 
contrast.  The  most  wretched  actor  on  the  last  of 
theatres  would  not  risk  himself  in  acting  a  funeral, 
where  the  dead  would  not  lie  even  three  seconds  in 
the  tomb.  The  conditions  indispensable  to  a  sym- 
bolic burial  are  in  no  way  fulfilled  by  immersion. 
It  is  but  a  burlesque,  a  miserable  parody,  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  is  all. 

§  32.   Baptism  as  a  Burial  is  an  Anachronism. 

—  Imagination  and  credulity  are  not  the  only  requi- 
sites indispensable  in  order  to  transform  baptism  in- 
to a  ceremony  of  burial.  A  strange  anachronism 
has  still  to  be  added.  John  must  have  buried  with 
Christ  all  the  people  and  disciples  in  the  water  of 
baptism  four  years  before  the  death  of  Christ  him- 
self!  And  the  disciples,  in  their  turn,  must  have 
buried  others  after  the  same  fashion !  The  people 
must  have  been  buried  with  Christ  long  before  he 
was  buried  himself!  But  the  people  baptized  by 
John  had  not  the  slightest  conception  of  a  crucified 
Messiah  ;  the  Apostles  themselves  began  faintly  to 
understand  atonement  only  when  their  Master  was 
on  the  eve  of  parting  with  them.  It  must  then  be 
acknowledged,  either  that  their  baptism  did  not  bury 
at  all  with  Christ,  or  else  that  they  buried  the  people 
unknown  to  them,  just  as  Father  Bataillon  baptizes 
and   saves   Chinese  without   their  suspecting  any- 


IMMERSION.  75 

thing  about  it.  Then,  through  his  baptism,  Christ 
would  have  been  buried  with  Christ  three  years 
before  his  death,  which  is  rather  startling.  It  is 
trne  that  it  was  before  his  death  that  the  Lord  insti- 
tuted the  Holy  Supper,  but  this  was  only  a  few 
moments  before,  when  the  scene  of  crucifixion  was 
already  beginning,  and  his  disciples  could  under- 
stand his  atoning  death.  Besides  the  Lord  gave, 
but  did  not  himself  take  the  Sacrament,  since  he 
could  not,  even  in  a  figure,  eat  his  own  body  and 
drink  his  own  blood. 

§  33.  Immersion  is  a  difficult,  complicated, 
asid  expensive  Ceremony,  which  leads  to  Ridi- 
cule and  excludes  Edification.  —  A  superficial 
study  of  baptism  once  in  our  younger  days  had  drift- 
ed us  pretty  far  into  the  Baptist  current,  when  the 
scandalous  spectacle .  of  immersion  created  misgiv- 
ings, and  caused  us  to  turn  back.  At  the  sight  of 
what  we  then  witnessed  for  the  first  time,  we  were 
overwhelmed  with  the  feeling  that  neither  Jesus 
Christ  nor  his  Apostles  could  have  instituted  a  cere- 
mony so  complicated,  and  so  far  removed  from  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel.  We  must  be  permitted 
here  to  describe  this  ceremony,  with  the  leading  cir- 
cumstances which  it  involves.  First,  it  is  a  very 
expensive  practice.  We  do  not  live  in  the  desert, 
and  in  towns  or  populous  regions  there  is  no  fa- 


76  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

cility  for  immersing  in  the  river  and  under  the 
canopy  of  heaven.  Churches,  therefore,  have  to 
be  constructed  especially  in  view  of  immersion. 
It  requires,  in  the  middle  of  the  edifice,  a  basin  large 
enough  to  allow  both  the  minister  and  the  candidate 
"to  go  down"  according  to  Scripture,  which  de- 
scent necessitates  steps  resting  in  the  water,  and 
occupying  some  room ;  then  sufficient  space  must 
remain  to  allow  the  rite  of  burial  to  take  place. 
There  is  need,  therefore,  of  a  reservoir  of  consid- 
erable size,  very  expensive,  and  occupying  a  large 
space.  Then  seats  must  be  arranged  so  as  to  allow 
the  whole  audience  to  witness  the  ceremony,  a  desid- 
eratum scarcely  ever  obtained,  even  by  building  the 
church  in  the  shape  of  an  amphitheatre.  After  this, 
the  church  must  contain  at  least  two,  if  not  three, 
private  dressing-rooms,  one  for  men,  another  for 
women,  and  the  third  for  the  minister,  where  they 
can  take  off  their  clothes  and  put  them  on  again 
after  drying  themselves.  A  pretty  complicated 
system  of  pipes  is  also  necessary  in  order  to  bring 
in  and  carry  away  the  enormous  supply  of  water 
needed.  In  towns  where  there  are  no  water-works, 
and  where  water  must  be  carried  in  buckets,  the 
labor  is  considerable  ;  we  have  seen  several  men 
employed  for  a  half-day  in  filling  one  of  these 
basins.  But  this  is  not  all ;  —  in  winter,  ice-cold 
water  would  suit  neither  the  candidate  nor  the  offi- 


IMMERSION.  77 

dating  minister  ;  the  church  therefore  also  requires 
an  extensive  apparatus  for  warming  the  water. 
A  Christian  friend,  who,  without  being  present  at 
the  ceremony,  had  only  witnessed  these  formidable 
preparations,  confessed  to  us  that  they  were  quite 
sufficient  to  convince  him  that  the  Apostles  could 
never  have  practised  immersion,  seeing  that  they 
administered  baptism  promptly,  and  wherever  they 
had  been  preaching  on  their  travels. 

The  basin  once  filled,  it  is  out  of  the  question  to 
immerse  the  people  in  the  garments  they  wear.  It 
would  be  not  only  indecent,  especially  for  females,  but 
very  awkward,  because,  once  drenched,  they  could 
scarcely  move,  and  still  less  pull  off  their  adhering 
clothes.  A  peculiar  dress  had,  therefore,  to  be  in- 
vented, long  and  loose  robes  which  both  sexes  put 
on,  the  men  being  thus  publicly  dressed  in  the  habit 
of  women,  contrary  to  the  injunction  of  Scripture. 
(Deut.  xxii.  5.)  But  these  robes  swelled  out  and 
floated  on  the  water  in  an  indecent  manner.  Ameri- 
can genius  has  therefore  invented  the  sewing  all 
round  them  of  leaden  bullets.  Invention  has  been 
carried  still  further,  and  the  officiating  minister  is 
dressed,  under  the  baptismal  gown,  with  a  complete 
water-proof  suit.  Boots,  trousers,  and  vest  are  all 
of  one  piece,  so  as  to  protect  against  the  danger- 
ous consequences  of  a  prolonged  stay  in  water. 
(Poor  Apostles  !  if  they  had  only  known  the  virtues 


78  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

of  india-rubber  when  they  had  to  stand  all  day  in 
water  to  immerse  the  thousands!)  Since  one  is 
immersed  but  once  in  a  life-time,  it  is  not  worth  the 
while  to  have  a  baptismal  robe  made  on  purpose, 
and,  besides,  the  very  making  of  the  gown,  with 
its  delays,  might  cool  the  ardor  of  many  a  candi- 
date, and  allow  time  for  reconsideration.  The  Bap- 
tist churches  are  therefore  compelled  to  have  their 
own  vestiary  stored,  in  readiness  for  any  emergency. 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  all  this  indispensa- 
ble water-apparatus,  the  peculiar  construction  of  the 
building,  and  the  set  of  baptismal  robes,  increases 
considerably  the  expenses  of  worship,  probably  no 
less  than  twenty  to  thirty  per  cent,  so  that  the  same 
monev  needed  to  construct  four  Baptist  churches 
•would  more  than  erect  five,  were  it  not  for  the  pecu- 
liar ceremony.  Immersion  has  thus  already  absorbed 
millions  of  dollars  in  the  United  States  alone,  and 
France,  with  Switzerland,  may  have,  sooner  or  later, 
to  pay  dear  for  it.  It  would,  perhaps,  be  worth  the 
while  to  question  whether  the  Apostles  have  really 
enjoined  this  expenditure,  and  whether  it  would  not 
be  more  consistent  with  their  principles  to  spend 
that  money  in  the  evangelization  of  the  people. 

But  let  us  come  to  the  ceremony  itself.  In 
front  are  seated  the  neophytes  with  an  embarrassed 
air.  dressed  in  black  gowns  similar  to  cassocks, 
and  in   this   guise   scarcely   recognizable   by  their 


IMMERSION.  79 

own  friends.  A  stranger  would  take  them  to  be 
priests  or  monkish  penitents,  about  to  perform  some 
great  ceremony.  The  minister  also  officiates  in 
the  same  cassock,  which  conceals  the  water-proof 
vestment.  After  preaching  in  that  dress,  he  goes 
down  first  in  the  basin,  and  then  invites  the  can- 
didates to  follow  him,  one  after  another.  The  con- 
gregation, who  see  them  disappear  under  the  floor, 
and  whose  curiosity  is  excited,  all  rise ;  they  press 
forward,  push,  and  elbow  each  other,  so  as  to  see 
the  ceremony.  We  know  of  a  Baptist  brother  who, 
thus  pushed,  accidentally  fell  into  the  basin  from  a 
great  height,  and  came  near  being  drowned.  Many 
persons  present  have  come  from  curiosity,  drawn 
by  the  grotesque  scene,  and  although  the  minister 
has  carefully  warned  them  to  behave  with  propriety 
and  not  to  laugh,  they  cannot  always  restrain  them- 
selves. In  most  cases,  when  the  neophyte  steps  into 
this  deep  water,  fear  and  anxiety  are  vividly  depicted 
on  his  face  ;  the  minister,  therefore,  loses  no  time 
in  pronouncing  these  sacramental  words  falsified : 
"  I  immerse  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Then,  grasping 
him  in  his  arms,  he  throws  him  back  violently, 
sinks  the  body  under  water,  and  promptly  raises 
it  up  again.  The  subject  immersed  is  then  panting 
for  breath,  sneezing,  blinded  by  the  water,  and  he 
staggers.      The  minister   holds   him  up  with   one 


80  THE   BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

arm,  while  the  other  is  engaged  in  wiping  the  face 
and  eyes  with  his  handkerchief.  Then  the  immersed 
ascends  from  the  water  through  the  same  step-ladder 
which  brought  him  down,  and  hastens  through  the 
church  to  the  dressing-room,  leaving  behind  a  stream 
of  water  wherever  he  goes.  Last  of  all,  the  min- 
ister hastens  to  his  dressing-room,  and  the  service  is 
abruptly  closed,  unless  there  be  present  a  second 
minister  to  proceed  with  it.  During  the  whole  of  the 
ceremony,  it  is  morally  impossible  that  the  candidate 
could  have  quietly  collected  his  thoughts,  calmly 
edified  himself,  and  prayed.  On  the  contrary,  he 
has  undergone  a  difficult,  complicated,  and  even 
fearful  operation,  which  has  claimed  for  externals 
all  his  attention,  and  this  pretended  solemnity  in- 
variably closes  with  towels,  combs,  and  a  tedious 
toilet. 

In  perusing  these  details,  several  will  be  aston- 
ished, some  will  be  tempted,  to  disbelieve.  But  let 
no  one  think  that  these  are  fancy  details,  for  they 
are  not  only  drawn  from  nature,  but  they  are  es- 
sential to  the  ceremony.  Which  of  them  would 
you  leave  out  ?  Which  of  them  do  you  think  could 
be  dispensed  with  ?  How  are  you  going  to  practise 
immersion  in  a  different  and  more  appropriate  man- 
ner ?  Baptists,  of  course,  have  done  everything  in 
their  power  to  render  their  ceremony  as  solemn  and 
as  far  removed  from  ridicule  as  practicable,  and, 


IMMERSION..  81 

after  all,  it  remains  from  necessity  just  such  as  we 
have  described  it,  —  a  practice  entirely  opposed  to 
the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  and  highly  repugnant 
to  a  somewhat  enlightened  sense  of  propriety.  We 
have  described,  however,  immersion  as  it  occurs 
under  the  best  circumstances  ;  namely,  in  a  church 
edifice.  Had  we  depicted  immersion  in  the  open 
air,  and  the  burial  of  believers  through  the  ice, 
we  should  have  had  to  go  into  more  offensive  de- 
tails, and  to  speak  of  wild  scenes  which  almost 
baffle  description. 

§  34.  The  Ceremony  is  sensual  and  carnal, 
dangerous  to  Health  and  even  a  Peril  to  "Life. 
—  But  the  love  of  great  ceremonies  is  deeply  seated 
hi  human  nature  ;  it  forms  indeed  the  principal  at- 
traction in  Romanism  and  Paganism.  Why  be  sur- 
prised if  this  same  tendency  manifests  itself  in  the 
bosom  of  Evangelical  Christianity,  and  endeavors  to 
gain  ground  and  make  itself  plausible  !  There  is  in 
this  dramatical  ceremony  of  immersion  something 
irresistible  to  weak  minds.  It  possesses  for  some  a 
fascination  of  allurement,  for  others  a  fascination 
of  terror,  for  all  the  captivating  charm  of  mystery, 
just  as  is  the  case  with  the  ceremonies  of  initiation  in 
free-masonry.  And  with  both  the  Baptist  and  the 
masonic  initiations,  those  who  have  undergone  the 
ordeal  are  forever  after  seized  with  an  irresistible 

4*  F 


82  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

desire  to  inflict  it  upon  others.  We  touch,  here 
a  law  of  human  nature,  that  innate  love  of  over- 
doing the  ceremony,  and  of  absorbing  the  spir- 
itual sense  in  the  carnal  type.  Carried  away  by 
a  similar  impulse,  the  Apostle  Peter  was  once 
tempted  before  his  conversion  to  apply  the  sensual 
meaning  to  the  water  of  baptism.  "  Peter  says 
unto  Jesus,  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet.  Jesus 
answered  him,  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part 
with  me.  Simon  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  not  my  feet 
only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head !  "  Here  is 
exactly  our  immersionist.  The  moment  he  thinks 
the  symbolic  water  good  for  anything,  it  must  be 
applied  first  to  his  feet,  then  to  his  hands,  then 
even  to  his  head,  or,  in  a  word,  to  the  whole  body. 
But  Jesus  instantly  reproves  the  carnal  mind  of 
his  disciple  ;  he  shows  him  that  a  partial  washing 
is  best  adapted  to  the  figure,  the  spiritual  import 
of  which  might  otherwise  easily  be  forgotten  in  the 
form.  "  He  that  is  washed  needeth  not  save  to 
wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  (John  xiii. 
8  -  10.)  This  circumstance  explains,  undoubtedly, 
why  at  a  later  period  Peter  established  such  a  se- 
vere contrast  between  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  that  of  water,  which  he  lowers  as  "  put- 
ting away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh."  (1  Pet.  iii. 
21.)  He  remembered  having  been  tempted  once 
to   exaggerate   the   value  of  a  baptism  of  water, 


IMMERSION.  83 

and  having  been  reproved  by  his  Master  for  his  car- 
nal mind.  The  blind  man  whom  the  Lord  healed, 
more  humble,  did  not  attempt  to  carry  obedience 
beyond  the  injunction  of  his  Master ;  he  was  satis- 
fied with  washing  his  eyes  in  the  pool  of  Siloam, 
although  unbelief  might  have  prompted  him  to 
perform  a  complete  immersion  as  more  efficacious 
than  a  partial  affusion  of  the  water. 

Some  Baptists,  to  be  more  Scriptural,  baptize 
only  in  the  open  air,  in  ponds  or  rivers,  and  even 
often  break  ice  in  the  midst  of  a  rigorous  north- 
ern winter,  in  order  to  immerse  their  new-made 
adherents.  This  practice  is  constant  in  America, 
and  becomes  often  a  necessity  from  the  fact  that 
in  country  places  a  bathing-tub  of  sufficient  di- 
mensions is  seldom  found.  Indeed,  the  first  im- 
mersions performed  in  a  locality  almost  always  take 
place  out  of  doors,  until  Baptists  become  numerous 
enough  to  build  a  chapel  with  the  immersing  appa- 
ratus. But  it  is  easily  understood  that,  if  a  person 
is  converted  to  Baptist  views  in  winter,  he  will  not 
be  made  to  wait  till  summer  to  fulfil  the  pressing 
duty  of  immersion,  the  more  so  because  his  con- 
victions might  grow  cold  while  the  water  of  the 
river  is  growing  warm.  They  hasten  therefore  to 
perform  the  ceremony  at  any  risk.  The  candidate 
is  told  that  there  is  nothing  to  fear  for  his  health, 
that  God  protects  in  a  special  manner  those  who 


84  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

obey  him,  and  that  this  which  under  any  other 
circumstances  would  be  an  imprudence  will  prove 
but  a  blessing.  Certain  it  is,  that  these  fair  prom- 
ises of  a  special  interposition  of  Providence  are  not 
realized,  and  that  some  pay  for  immersion  with 
their  health,  and  even  with  their  life.  But  the 
fatal  result  not  being  immediate,  it  happens  with 
this  as  with  the  panaceas  of  quack  doctors,  who 
while  promising,  and  indeed  sincerely,  impunity 
and  wonderful  effects  from  their  treatment,  kill 
hi  reality  a  great  many  people.  The  fatal  results 
pass  unnoticed,  enthusiasm  is  sustained,  and  dupes 
multiply  notwithstanding.  "We  have  seen  a  woman 
who,  immersed  in  the  river  in  mid-winter,  reached 
her  home  with  difficulty,  forming  but  one  icicle 
with  her  frozen  garments,  and  had  to  be  thawed 
before  the  fire.  She  escaped  with  a  violent  fever. 
That  Mormon  priest  will  be  remembered,  who  some 
years  since,  in  attempting  to  immerse  two  women 
in  the  Trent,  drowned  them  both.  Similar  cases 
have  occurred  in  America.  But  in  the  heat  of 
victory  and  conquest,  the  casualties  of  the  battle- 
field are  passed  unnoticed. 

In  order  to  give  one  instance  amongst  many,  we 
borrow  from  the  recent  work  on  baptism  of  the 
Rev.  J.  Wood,  the  following  incident  which  hap- 
pened in  his  neighborhood.  He  states  that  "  A 
young  lady  was  recently  immersed  in  Paris,  Can- 


IMMERSION.  85 

ada  West,  in  the  winter  season,  and  died  shortly 
afterwards  from  the  effects  of  it ;  and  her  father, 
after  listening  to  the  funeral  sermon  preached  on 
the  occasion, — in  which  the  minister  had  remarked 
upon  the  mysteriousness  of  Divine  Providence  in 
cutting  off  one  so  young  and  promising,  —  unable 
to  control  any  longer  his  indignation,  rose  and 
publicly  charged  him  with  the  death  of  his  daugh- 
ter !  "  Another  lady,  of  Baptist  principles  but  in 
delicate  health,  who  was  urged  to  undergo  an  iced 
immersion,  declined,  unwilling  to  believe  that  it 
was  the  will  of  her  Saviour  she  should  leap  into 
the  very  jaws  of  death  for  the  sake  of  a  ceremony. 

§  35.  Baptism  by  Immersion  is  an  old  Hea- 
then Practice.  —  We  have  said  that  this  zeal  for 
immersion  proceeds  from  a  carnal  propensity  of 
human  nature  to  exaggerate  the  figure  and  over- 
do the  ceremony.  Let  us  add  now  that  this  prac- 
tice is  more  ancient  than  Christianity,  for  it  is  pa- 
gan. The  Greek  and  Roman  heathen  are  perfectly 
agreed  with  the  Baptists  as  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, only  we  must  give  them  credit  for  more 
moderation  and  less  exclusiveness  than  modern 
immersionists.  For  they  did  not  absolutely  deny 
the  validity  of  sprinkling,  but  were  satisfied  with 
underrating  it,  and  devoting  that  form  of  bap- 
tism to   the  worship  of  the   infernal   deities.     To 


86  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

them,  however,  immersion  was  the  most  genuine 
form  of  baptism  ;  it  was  reserved  for  Jupiter  and 
the  great  gods.  Heathen  and  Baptists  are  thus 
agreed  that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism  wor- 
thy of  the  Supreme  God,  and  that  it  is  indispen- 
sable to  his  worship.  (Virgil,  iEn.  II.  719  ;  IV. 
635  -  638.)  They  differed  however  in  this,  that 
the  heathen,  with  correct  taste,  thought  that  a 
religious  lustration  in  a  pond,  or  in  a  basin,  or 
any  stagnant  water,  was  unworthy  of  deity,  and 
they  insisted  upon  a  resort  to  running  water. 

Attrectare  nefas ;  donee  me  flumine  vivo 

Abluero. 

(Mn.  II.  719.) 

vhaci  iroTdfilois 
eXovaaro. 

(Euripides,  Alcest.  160,  161.) 

They  understood  rightly  baptism  as  a  symbol  of 
purification,  and  considered  it  just  the  reverse  from 
purifying  to  have  twelve  or  more  successive  im- 
mersions of  different  people,  and  different  sexes, 
in  one  basin,  with  the  same  unchanged  water.  Pu- 
rity, and  not  defilement,  was  the  object  of  their 
religious  lustrations. 

But  whence  this  strange  conformity  of  feeling 
and  practice  between  modern  Baptists  and  old 
heathen  ?  Morally  it  arose  from  this  love  of  im- 
mersion, which,  as  we   have   seen,  lies  in  human 


IMMERSION.  87 

nature ;  but  historically  the  Catholic  Church  bor- 
rowed very  early  this  rite  from  paganism,  as  well 
as  many  other  objectionable  practices,  and  the  Bap- 
tists in  turn  borrowed  immersion  from  the  Papists. 
Horace  informs  us  that  superstitious  mothers  in 
Rome  made  immersion  the  object  of  a  vow  to  Ju- 
piter, and  that  although  this  baptism  performed 
in  winter  in  the  Tiber  had  often  the  most  fatal 
consequences,  yet  there  was  no  falling  off  in  the 
zeal  for  immersion.  Delira  mater,  etc.  (Sat.  II. 
3.  289.)  But  here  is  a  most  striking  instance 
which  we  have  gathered  from  the  Latin  poet 
Juvenal.  Describing  the  practice  of  superstitious 
women,  upon  whom  the  priests  inflict  a  penance, 
he  says  :  "  And  in  order  to  make  an  expiation  for 
the  sins  of  the  whole  year,  having  broken  the  ice 
in  winter,  she  will  go  down  into  the  river,  will  im- 
merse herself  three  times  in  the  Tiber,  and  though 
frightened  will  dip  her  head  in  the  very  current, 
will  come  out  of  the  water  shivering,  and  drag 
herself  home  with  difficulty  through  the  fields." 

Et  totum  semel  expiet  annum, 
Hibernum  fracta  glacie  descendet  in  amnem, 
Ter  matutino  Tiberi  mergetur,  et  ipsis 
Vorticibus  timidum  caput  abluet,  etc. 

(Sat.  VI.  518-521.) 

Here  is  a  real  Baptist  scene  drawn  from  nature, 
and  there  is  no  detail  wanting  to  it ;  but  this  sort 


88  THE   BAPTISM  OF   WATER. 

of  baptism  was  practised  in  Rome  before  Jesus 
Christ  by  heathen,  as  it  continues  to  be  even  at 
the  present  day  by  the  Hindoos  in  the  Ganges. 
The  Druid  priests  also  conferred  a  baptism  by  im- 
mersion in  the  sacred  lakes  as  an  initiatory  rite. 
(Keysler,  Antiq.)  It  is  easy  now  to  see  where 
the  Fathers  found  their  immersion,  indeed,  their 
triple  immersion,  which  they  always  practised  in 
honor  of  the  Trinity.  It  was  a  means  of  popu- 
larizing baptism  amongst  a  people,  pagan,  igno- 
rant, and  superstitious,  to  identify  it  with  an  old 
and  favorite  superstitious  practice.  This  cold  im- 
mersion through  the  ice  of  a  river  was  a  merito- 
rious work,  a  sort  of  penance ;  it  satisfied,  by  an 
act  of  mortification,  the  self-righteousness  natural 
to  man.  On  the  other  hand,  the  moment  that  the 
water  of  baptism  was  supposed  to  possess  some 
miraculous  virtue  for  regenerating,  as  the  Fathers 
believed,  it  was  but  fair  to  exclaim  with  Peter : 
"Not  only  the  feet,  but  also  the  hands  and  the 
head ! "  that  is  to  say,  the  whole  body.  Let  us 
be  just,  let  us  render  to  Ceesar  the  things  of  Csesar, 
and  baptism  by  immersion  to  the  heathen,  who 
have  practised  it  long  before  Jesus  Christ,  and 
continue  it  still  in  the  Ganges. 

§  36.    The  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an 
Aspersion.  —  The  water  baptism  of  the  Gospel  is 


IMMERSION.  89 

very  different  from  the  pagan  ceremony.  It  repre- 
sents in  a  figure  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
but  we  know  that  the  latter  is  "  poured  out  and 
shed  "  on  us.  (Acts  ii.  18,  33  ;  x.  44  ;  xi.  15,  16.) 
We  are  certainly  not  plunged  into  the  Holy  Ghost, 
although  the  Baptist  version  makes  John  say  : 
"  Jesus  Christ  will  immerse  you  into  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  into  fire."  (Matt.  iii.  11.)  Here  is  at 
last  purgatory  introduced  into  the  Bible  by  Bap- 
tists for  the  benefit  of  the  Romish  Church,  if  the 
Lord  is  to  give  his  disciples  a  plunge  into  the  fire. 
Scripture,  however,  teaches  us  very  clearly  and 
very  positively  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came  down, 
was  "poured,  shed,  fell,  and  sat  upon"  the  heads 
of  the  disciples  like  tongues  of  fire.  (Acts  ii.  3.) 
This  was  the  greatest  baptism,  only  foreshadowed 
by  that  of  water,  and  yet  it  was  visibly  and  figura- 
tively applied  to  part  of  their  heads  alone,  and  not 
to  the  whole  body.  The  Spirit  was  applied  to  them, 
and  not  they  to  the  Spirit,  much  less  were  they 
thrown  down  and  plunged  into  the  Holy  Ghost.  In 
the  very  same  manner  the  water  of  baptism  must 
be  applied  to  the  candidate,  and  not  the  candidate 
to  the  water,  as  do  Baptists.  (See  also  Eom.  v.  5 ; 
Tit.  hi.  5,  6  ;  Eph.  i.  13.)  The  Spirit  rests  upon 
us,  and  not  we  into  or  under  the  Spirit ;  and  at 
the  baptism  of  Jesus,  John  saw  the  Spirit  "  descend- 
ing and  alighting"  upon  him.     Moreover,  the  blood 


90  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

of  Christ,  which  washes  us  from  all  sins,  is  it  a 
"blood  of  sprinkling"  or  a  blood  of  immersion  ? 
(Heb.  xii.  24  ;  1  Pet.  i.  2.)  And  if  an  aspersion 
of  blood  is  sufficient  to  wash  us  in  figure,  why 
should  not  an  aspersion  of  water  be  also  suffi- 
cient ?  Why  insist  to  be  washed  by  the  water  more 
completely  than  by  the  blood  ? 

§  37.  While  the  Ordinances  of  the  Gospel  he- 
long  to  all,  Immersion  is  to  many  absolutely 
and  forever  impossible.  —  As  we  have  already 
acknowledged,  immersion  is  a  difficult,  expensive, 
and  often  dangerous  practice.  It  cannot  generally 
be  performed  without  very  complicated  preparations. 
And  if  it  is  impracticable  in  several  climates,  under 
the  freezing  blasts  of  the  north,  as  well  as  in  the 
midst  of  the  droughts  of  the  African  desert,  or  of 
the  steppes  of  Asia,  it  is  also  absolutely  impossible 
in  many  cases.  First  of  all,  for  sickly  persons,  the 
clinici  of  the  Fathers.  Baptism  is  often  craved  for 
on  a  bed  of  sickness  and  death,  and  then  few  Bap- 
tists have  the  cruelty  to  deny  aspersion  as  valid. 
But  is  this  not  tantamount  to  a  confession  that 
immersion  is  not  indispensable  to  the  form  ?  Why 
again  excommunicate  so  many  of  their  brethren  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  they  have  been  sprinkled 
instead  of  immersed  ?  Why  this  indulgence  for 
those  sick  in  the  body,  and  this  severity  for  those 


IMMERSION.  91 

supposed  to  be  sick  intellectually,  who,  however 
sincere,  cannot  succeed  in  perceiving  the  command 
of  immersion  in  the  Bible  ?  Is  not  this  the  indi- 
cation of  a  bad  cause,  sullied  with  fanaticism  and 
sectarian  spirit  ?  We  have  already  explained  the 
necessity  of  considerable  physical  strength  in  the 
Baptist  minister,  to  enable  him  to  fulfil  his  minis- 
try, because,  while  occupying  in  the  water  an  un- 
stable position,  he  has  to  carry  in  his  arms  the 
heavy  load  of  an  inert  body.  But  there  are  men 
so  corpulent,  women  of  such  size,  that  no  Baptist 
minister  could  possibly  immerse  them.  Their  bap- 
tism is  beyond  the  muscular  power  of  man.  They 
cannot  be  requested  to  immerse  themselves,  for 
immersion  is  burial,  and  no  dead  man  can  bury 
himself  or  even  help  at  his  burial ;  he  must  remain 
perfectly  passive.  Now  we  ask,  Is  the  kingdom  of 
God  only  for  people  of  small  stature,  or  must  we 
invent  engines  to  assume  the  place  of  the  Baptist 
minister  ?  Why  compel  all  the  grenadier  body- 
guard of  the  Emperor  of  France,  or  even  the 
Coldstream  Guards  of  the  Queen,  to  be  Pedobap- 
tists  ?     Is   not   the  Gospel  intended  for  all  ? 

§  38.    Immersion  is  an  Indecency  and  even  a 

Blasphemy.  —  But  this  is  not  all.  Immersion  is  a 
public  indecency.  Is  it  proper  that  a  man  should 
take,  in  public  and  before  a  promiscuous  congrega- 


92  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

tion,  a  young  woman  in  his  arms,  clasp  her  appar- 
elled in  a  loose  bathing-dress,  plunge  her,  wipe  her, 
and  assist  her  out  of  the  bath,  with  her  light  clothes 
indecently  clinging  to  her  form  ?  Shall  they  make 
him  believe,  who  knows  ever  so  little  the  manners 
of  the  East,  the  immense  distance  which  there  sep- 
arates the  sexes,  so  that  a  man  dares  not  even  look 
at  a  woman's  face  in  public,  and  it  would  be  his 
death  to  touch  her,  —  shall  they  make  him  believe, 
we  say,  that  the  Apostles  would  have  dared  to  take 
by  the  waist  the  women  of  Jerusalem,  bathe  them 
with  their  own  hands  in  the  presence  of  an  indig- 
nant public,  and  send  them  back  home,  dragging 
through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  their  clothes  drip- 
ping with  water  ?  The  Apostles  would  have  been 
immediately  stoned  by  a  justly  irritated  people. 

Immersion  is  not  only  an  act  of  indecency,  but 
it  is  also,  by  implication,  a  blasphemy.  For  in  that 
parody  of  the  death  of  Christ,  there  cannot  be  a 
burial,  without  also  a  resurrection,  and  this  the 
Apostle  himself  declares.  (Rom.  vi.  4.)  The  first 
man  who  saw  in  water-baptism  a  burial,  Menander, 
disciple  of  Simon  the  Magician,  consistently  taught 
also  that  baptism  was  a  resurrection.  It  is  evident 
that  the  same  person  who  buries  the  neophyte  raises 
him  up  again  from  the  tomb,  for  he  could  not  be  left 
buried  under  water  even  for  one  moment.  In  figure 
he  is  resuscitated,  just  as  much  as  he  is  buried. 


IMMERSION.  93 

The  Baptist  minister  acts  then  figuratively  in  the 
place  of  God,  whom  he  unwittingly  personifies.  He 
takes  possession  of  the  candidate,  who  must  become 
passive  ;  he  crucifies  him  with  Christ,  he  causes 
him  to  die,  he  buries  him,  and  raises  him  up  again 
with  Christ.  For  it  is  impossible  to  carry  out  only  a 
portion  of  the  figure.  Involuntarily  the  whole  pan- 
tomime of  redemption  is  acted,  if  any  part  is  at- 
tempted, by  a  water-burial  with  Christ.  Is  not  this 
virtually  a  blasphemy,  from  which  the  evangelical 
Christian  must  turn  aside  with  disgust  and  indigna- 
tion, saying,  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do  "  ?  No  wonder,  then,  that  our 
reformers  should  have  expressed  strong  abhorrence 
for  Anabaptism,  and  should  have  maintained  with 
Zwingle,  that  "  those  who  rebaptize  crucify  Jesus 
Christ." 

§  39.    Immersion  is  in  Scripture  the  Symbol 

of  the  Divine  Curse.  —  We  could  close  here  our 
remarks  on  immersion,  for  we  believe  to  have 
shown  by  a  superabundance  of  proofs  that  it  is 
not  the  baptism  of  the  Gospel.  But  in  order  to 
be  more  complete  still,  we  are  anxious  to  sound 
Scripture  again,  to  see  if  immersion  is  mentioned 
in  any  way  apart  from  baptism,  and  whether  some 
symbolical  sense  is  attributed  to  it.  Now,  we  shall 
soon  find  that  the  Bible  knows  immersion,  and  it 


94  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

has  made  of  this  pagan  ceremony  the  symbol  of 
malediction.  The  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  have 
themselves  put  us  in  the  way  of  this  symbolical 
meaning,  through  the  contrast  between  baptism  and 
immersion  which  their  language  implies.  When 
Peter  speaks  to  us  of  the  baptism  of  Noah,  and  of 
the  eight  persons  saved  in  the  ark  (1  Peter  iii.  20, 
21),  and  we  inquire  what  was  the  mode  of  this  bap- 
tism, the  response  is  evidently  that  they  were  not 
plunged  in  water,  but  only  sprinkled  by  the  rain  of 
heaven  which  fell  upon  them.  But  at  the  occasion 
of  this  baptism,  who  was  immersed  ?  "  The  world 
of  the  ungodly  "  ;  they  alone  were  immersed  in  the 
waters  of  the  deluge,  and  immersion  was  henceforth 
among  the  people  of  God  a  symbol  of  malediction. 
God  himself  immersed  the  sinful  and  perverse  race 
during  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  in  reality  bury- 
ing them  into  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  whilst  he 
baptized  the  family  of  Noah  by  the  sprinkling  of 
heaven.  After  the  same  manner  Paul  teaches  us 
(1  Cor.  x.  2)  that  after  the  deluge  God  baptized 
his  people  when  they  passed  through  the  Red  Sea. 
Certainly  they  were  not  plunged  ;  the  spray  of  the 
sea  driven  by  the  wind  could  alone  have  reached 
them,  and  thus  baptized  them  by  sprinkling.  "Who 
at  the  time  of  this  baptism  was  immersed  ?  Pha- 
raoh and  his  army  ;  God  himself  immersed  them  in 
the  Red  Sea  as  a  malediction.     Moses  declares  to 


IMMERSION.  95 

us  (Ex.  xiv.  27,  28)  that  "  the  Lord  overthrew  the 
Egyptians  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  the  waters 
returned,  and  covered  the  chariots,  and  the  horse- 
men, and  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh  that  came  into  the 
sea  after  them ;  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one 
of  them,"  —  for  they  were  all  immersed,  that  is  to 
say,  drowned.  Then  follows  this  beautiful  descrip- 
tion of  the  immersion  :  "  Then  sang  Moses  and  the 
children  of  Israel  this  song  unto  the  Lord,  and 
spake,  saying,  The  Lord  is  my  salvation.  Pha- 
raoh's chariots  and  his  host  hath  he  cast  into  the 
sea :  his  chosen  captains  also  are  drowned  (in  the 
Hebrew  immersed)  in  the  Red  Sea.  The  depths 
have  covered  them :  they  sank  into  the  bottom  as  a 
stone.  The  sea  covered  them  ;  they  sank  as  lead 
in  the  mighty  waters."     (Ex.  xv.  1,  4,  5, 10.) 

The  New  Testament,  faithful  to  this  symbolic 
sense,  represents  the  dragon  as  pouring  water  from 
his  mouth  like  a  flood,  to  immerse  the  woman  who 
personifies  the  Church,  —  that  is  to  say,  the  believ- 
ers. (Rev.  xii.  15.)  It  is  for  the  same  reason  that 
Jesus  Christ  himself  advises  that  those  who  commit 
offences  should  be  immersed,  but  not  his  disciples. 
(Matt,  xviii.  6.)  When  the  confidence  of  his  dis- 
ciple Peter  wavers,  then  only  he  inflicts  upon  him 
a  commencement  of  immersion,  from  which  his 
faith  saved  him  in  time,  otherwise  he  would  have 
been  completely  immersed.   (Matt.  xiv.  30.)     The 


96  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

herd  of  swine,  as  soon  as  they  were  possessed  of  the 
evil  spirits,  rushed  to  the  sea  for  immersion.  (Matt, 
viii.  32.)  Immersion  is  thus,  in  the  intention  of 
our  Saviour,  the  wages  of  unbelief,  the  punishment 
of  offences,  a  symbol  of  malediction. 

What  perversion  of  ideas,  to  wish  to  replace  the 
sign  of  the  covenant  of  grace  by  a  type  of  maledic- 
tion, and  to  compel  the  Christian  minister  to  act 
the  part  of  the  dragon,  who,  in  his  hatred  towards 
Jesus  Christ,  would  immerse  all  believers  in  the 
water ! 

The  grave  of  Jesus  Christ  belongs  to  the  infidel 
world,  and  is  reserved  to  the  impenitent  sinner;  he 
will  be  buried  with  the  Son  of  Man,  never  to  rise 
again,  and  this  burial  is  symbolic  of  the  curse  of 
God.  But  the  believer  finds  "  a  lively  hope  only 
in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ"  (1  Pet.  i.  3), 
and,  obedient  to  his  Master,  lets  the  dead  bury 
their  dead. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST. 

§  40.  The  Observation  of  Facts  is  the  Best 
Method  to  follow.  —  The  external  and  ceremo- 
nial form  of  baptism  once  decided,  our  researches 
ought  henceforth  to  have  for  an  object  to  reach  the 
hidden  meaning  of  this  sacrament,  and  to  deter- 
mine who  are  the  persons  who  ought  to  receive  it. 
Two  methods  here  offer  themselves  to  us.  One 
would  consist  in  ascertaining  first  the  hidden  mean- 
ing, and  then  deciding  from  it  who  are  the  proper 
persons  to  receive  baptism  ;  this  would  be  regulat- 
ing the  practice  by  the  idea.  The  other  method 
would  take  for  a  starting-point  the  practice  of  the 
Apostles,  —  would  examine  facts,  class  them,  and 
deduce  from  them  the  theory.  The  first  method 
is  the  most  brilliant  and  also  the  easiest,  but  at  the 
same  time  the  most  superficial,  the  one  which  most 
favors  peculiar  ideas,  and  which  serves  to  support 
all  preconceived  theories.  The  second  is  more  slow 
and  difficult,  but  much  safer,  and  therefore  this  is 


98  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  one  we  adopt.  It  is  in  the  Gospel  as  it  is  in 
nature  :  from  the  attentive  and  critical  observation 
of  a  great  number  of  facts  we  draw  the  most  solid 
conclusions  and  systems  truly  based  on  reality, 
whilst  we  go  astray  when  we  begin  with  abstract 
ideas,  with  a  notion  of  how  a  thing  should  be,  to 
descend  thence  afterwards  to  facts,  and  seek  to 
make  the  latter  fit  with  a  preconceived  system. 
We  resume,  therefore,  our  researches  by  the  in- 
vestigation of  a  great  fact, — the  baptism  of  John 
the  Baptist. 

§  41.  Presumption  that  the  Baptism  of  John 
and  that  of  the  Apostles  form  hut  one.  —  Most  of 
the  works  on  Baptism,  whatever  be  their  color,  seek 
to  establish  a  fundamental  difference  between  the 
baptism  of  John  and  Christian  baptism,  —  a  differ- 
ence sufficient,  they  say,  in  the  eyes  of  the  Apostles 
to  lead  them  to  rebaptize  those  who  had  already 
received  John's  baptism.  (Acts  xix.  1  -  5.)  Sev- 
eral Baptists,  however,  have  contended  that  the  two 
baptisms  are  essentially  but  one,  and  we  are  happy 
to  be  able  to  agree  with  them  on  this  point.  Such 
also  is  the  opinion  of  Calvin.  To  admit  that  there 
could  have  been  two  baptisms,  differing  either  as  to 
form  or  to  substance,  is  to  place  one's  self  under  the 
impossibility  of  understanding  anything  as  to  Chris- 
tian baptism.   When  should  one  baptism  have  ceased 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.      99 

and  the  other  begun  ?  Most  writers  fix  this  mo- 
ment at  the  first  Pentecost  after  the  death  of  Jesus 
Christ,  when  the  Apostles  received  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  would  follow  that,  in  what  pre- 
cedes, namely,  in  the  four  Gospels,  which  is  to  say, 
the  first  half  of  the  New  Testament,  whatever  is  said 
in  reference  to  baptism  must  be  understood  as  that 
of  John,  and  that  we  should  be  confined  in  our 
researches  upon  Christian  baptism  to  the  second 
half  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus,  while  the  data 
of  the  whole  book  might  already  seem  insufficient 
to  enable  us  to  reach  some  safe  conclusion  on  Chris- 
tian baptism,  many  divines  are  still  willing  to  throw 
away  half,  without  thinking  that  they  thus  place 
themselves  under  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  re- 
sorting to  fancy  rather  than  to  facts,  if  they  would 
reconstruct  a  doctrine  with  materials  altogether 
insufficient,  incomplete,  and  of  uncertain  relation. 

But  this  is  not  all.  It  would  become  necessary 
then  to  treat  of  the  two  baptisms  separately,  to  write 
the  history  of  each,  showing  its  beginning  and  its 
end.  The  baptism  of  John,  its  mode  and  idea, 
should  first  be  well  studied,  then  the  Christian  bap- 
tism subsequent  to  it  should  be  well  contrasted, 
differences  well  ascertained,  new  principles  and  new 
rules  of  practice  established  for  the  latter.  This  is 
an  impossible  undertaking,  which  never  has  been 
and  never  will  be  accomplished ;  without  which, 


100  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

however,  nothing  certain  could  be  decided  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Christian  Baptism.  As  to  ourselves,  if 
we  were  convinced  that  the  baptism  of  John  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  the  Apostles,  either  as  to  the 
mode  or  the  meaning,  we  should  lay  aside  all 
further  researches  as  a  vain  attempt,  and  we  should 
hereafter  consider  baptism  as  an  impenetrable  mys- 
tery, which  it  has  been  the  intention  of  Scripture  to 
conceal  from  us.  With  the  Quakers,  we  would 
abandon  its  practice,  as  wanting  Scriptural  basis, 
and  fit  only  to  divide  Christians. 

§  42.  The  Pretended  Anahaptism  of  Paul  to- 
wards Certain  Disciples  of  John. — There  is  then, 
already,  a  strong  presumption  that  the  two  baptisms 
are  identical ;  let  us  now  change  presumption  into 
proof.  Only  one  fact  has  ever  been  adduced  in 
support  of  the  opinion  that  there  are  two  distinct 
baptisms  of  water  under  the  Gospel ;  it  is  the  ana- 
baptism  of  Paul  in  reference  to  the  baptism  of 
John  :  — 

"  And  it  came  to  pass  that  Paul  came  to  Ephesus  ; 
and  finding  certain  disciples,  he  said  unto  them, 
Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believed  ? 
And  they  said  unto  him,  We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he 
said  unto  them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ? 
And  they  said,  Unto  John's  baptism.     Then  said 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     101 

Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him,  that 
is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  And 
when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them.  And  all  the  men  were  about 
twelve."     (Acts  xix.  1  -  7.) 

At  first  sight,  this  passage  appears  very  strong, 
and  it  seems  impossible  to  escape  from  the  con- 
clusion, that  if,  after  having  received  the  baptism 
of  John,  it  was  still  necessary  by  command  of  an 
Apostle  to  be  re-baptized  in  order  to  obtain  Chris- 
tian baptism,  there  must  be  indeed  a  radical  and 
fundamental  difference  between  the  two  baptisms. 
The  conclusion  is  too  logical  to  be  avoided ;  we  do 
not  therefore  contest  it,  but  we  attack  the  premises 
as  insufficient.  If  these  disciples  were  really  re-bap- 
tized, which  the  translation  affirms,  but  the  original 
does  not,  we  must  say  that  their  first  baptism  was 
far  from  a  true  baptism  of  John  ;  it  was,  on  the 
contrary,  so  irregular  and  spurious,  that  Paul  felt 
bound  to  consider  it  as  void  and  of  no  effect.  Let 
us  follow  the  narrative.  "We  are  in  the  year  55  or 
56  of  the  Christian  era ;  that  is  to  say,  over  twenty- 
five  years  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
over  twenty-two  since  the  foundation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.     The  Messianic  view  of  the  Forerun- 


102  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ner  has  therefore  become  superannuated  and  inad- 
missible ;  it  belongs  to  the  past,  is  outshone  by  new 
light  and  does  not  meet  with  the  creed  of  the  Apos- 
tles. A  baptism  made  then  in  strict  accordance 
to  John,  namely,  to  obtain  the  remission  of  sins 
through  faith  in  a  Messiah  only  expected,  but  not 
come,  is  a  falsehood  ;  for  the  Messiah  has  come, 
and  such  a  baptism,  in  denying  it,  denies  the  Gos- 
pel. Can  such  a  baptism  be  valid  ?  Certainly  not. 
It  might  have  been  allowed  a  quarter  of  a  century 
earlier,  but  at  this  point  it  was  an  apostasy  against 
which  it  was  necessary  to  protest,  by  holding  such 
baptism  as  of  no  account  whatever. 

This  explains  why  Scripture  speaks  of  these  peo- 
ple as  being  certain  disciples,  which  means  that 
they  were  not  some  of  the  disciples,  but  only  spu- 
rious disciples,  neither  Jews  nor  Christians,  an 
anomaly  and  an  exception.  They  had  not  been 
baptized  by  John  himself,  for  this  is  not  said,  and 
in  that  case  they  would  all  have  been  old  men. 
More  strange  still  that  these  twelve,  after  having 
been  baptized  in  Jordan,  should  all  meet  together 
twenty-five  years  afterwards  in  Ephesus,  and  that 
during  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  through  long 
travels,  not  one  of  them  should  have  ever  heard 
aught  of  the  accomplished  atonement  of  Christ,  of 
the  Church,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  All  this  is  im- 
possible.    For  the  same  reason,  these  twelve  must 


iHE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     103 

have  been  strangers  in  the  city  of  Ephesus,  and 
were  only  recently  arrived  when  Paul  met  them ; 
otherwise  they  would  have  heard  of  the  Christians 
in  the  place,  and  not  have  remained  in  such  gross 
ignorance  of  Christianity.  We  must  therefore  ad- 
mit that  these  people  had  just  come  from  some  dis- 
tant locality,  that  some  old  disciple  of  John,  still 
unenlightened,  had  imparted  to  them  an  imperfect 
doctrine,  and  that  they  had  been  baptized  by  him 
against  all  rules,  and  even  in  ignorance  of  the  true 
principles  of  John  the  Baptist.  For  the  latter  had 
himself  preached  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  very  existence  of  which  was  ignored  by  these 
twelve,  and  he  had  announced  the  immediate  com- 
ing of  Jesus  Christ,  whom  these  pretended  disciples 
did  not  know  either,  as  is  apparent  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul.  A  baptism  according  to  John  the 
Baptist,  more  than  twenty-five  years  after  his  death, 
would  have  been  irregular  enough,  but  these  "  cer- 
tain disciples "  had  come  very  short  of  even  such 
a  baptism.  They  had  virtually  received  only  a  re- 
ligious lustration,  having  of  baptism  but  the  form. 
The  external  seal  of  baptism  had  been  placed  on 
words  and  doctrines  imbued  with  ignorance  and 
heresy.  We  should  ourselves  have  declared  their 
baptism  void,  and  re-baptized  them.  We  should  re- 
baptize  Mormons,  and  yet  Mormon  baptism,  imply- 
ing some  knowledge  of  Christ  and  the  existence  of 


104  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

the  Holy  Ghost,  is  vastly  superior  to  the  baptism 
received  by  the  "  certain  disciples." 

All  this  is  still  clearer  in  the  original  than  in  the 
version.  It  does  not  affirm  that  the  disciples  had 
believed  ;  it  makes  rather  their  faith  the  object  of 
the  question  of  Paul :  "  Have  you  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,  having  believed  ?  "  Which  amounts 
to  saying :  "  Have  you  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
through  faith  ?  "  The  Apostle  neither  affirms  nor 
denies  that  they  have  believed,  but  means  only  that, 
if  they  are  truly  disciples  and  have  believed,  they 
must  also  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  Their 
answer  shows  sufficiently  that  they  have  neither 
the  spirit  nor  the  faith,  and  need  to  be  catechized 
by  Paul.  He  expresses  his  astonishment  that  they 
should  have  been  baptized  at  all,  by  asking,  "  Unto 
what "  —  namely,  unto  what  doctrine  — ''  have  you 
been  baptized  ?  "  And  they  answer,  "  Unto  John's 
baptism,"  —  namely,  in  professing  the  doctrines  of 
John. 

Calvin  does  not  think  that  these  people  were  re- 
baptized  with  water  by  Paul,  but  that  their  second 
baptism  was  only  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  conferred 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  The  original  does  not 
bend  to  this  interpretation,  for  it  describes  the  bap- 
tism and  the  laying  on  of  hands  as  two  successive 
and  distinct  acts.  But  nothing  in  the  text  prevents 
the   translation  of  Beza,  Calixtus,  and  Wolf,  who 


THE  BAPTISM  OP  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     105 

make  the  5th  verse  the  conclusion  of  the  speech  of 
Paul,  and  read :  "  John  said  unto  the  people  that 

they  should  believe,  etc and  having  heard 

him  (John)  they  (the  people)  were  baptized."  Ac- 
cording to  this  reading,  there  is  nothing  said  in  the 
text  about  the  disciples  being  re-baptized,  but  only 
that  hands  were  laid  upon  them  to  obtain  the  Holy 
Ghost.  We  do  not  indorse  this  last  translation, 
but  it  agrees  perfectly  with  the  Greek  original,  and 
this  alone  will  be  sufficient  reason  why  the  pas- 
sage cannot  serve  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  erect 
the  doctrine  of  a  double  baptism  of  water  under 
the  Gospel. 

§  43.  The  Spiritual  Import  of  Baptisin  is  sus- 
ceptible, in  the  New  Testament,  of  a  Gradual 
and  Historical  Development.  —  We  shall  be  re- 
proached, perhaps,  with  having  implied,  in  the  re- 
marks that  precede,  a  certain  difference  between 
the  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the  Apostles,  even 
after  declaring  them  identical.  Let  us,  then,  ex- 
plain ourselves.  It  is  only  an  essential  difference 
between  the  two  baptisms  that  we  deny ;  but  we 
readily  admit  a  shade.  A  distinction  is  to  be  made, 
in  water  baptism,  between  the  form,  the  subjects 
who  receive  it,  and  the  dogmatical  idea  attached  to 
it.  We  see  between  John  and  the  Apostles  no  dif- 
ference, either  as  to  form  or  as  to  subjects  ;  but  as 

5* 


106  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

to  the  dogmatical  idea  we  acknowledge  a  difference, 
if  not  in  the  substance,  at  least  in  the  development ; 
for  after  the  death  of  Christ,  the  light  on  the  work 
of  Redemption  is  much  greater  than  in  the  days  of 
the  Forerunner.  But  the  spiritual  idea  remains  in 
substance  just  the  same.  Both  baptisms  have  regard, 
1st.  To  repentance  and  conversion ;  2d.  The  re- 
mission of  sins  ;  3d.  The  Lamb  of  God,  who  takes 
away  the  sins  of  the  world  ;  4th.  The  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  the  final  object  to  be  reached.  (Acts 
ii.  38.)  These  points  are  just  the  same  ;  their  de- 
velopments alone  differ.  Remission  of  sin  is  a  doc- 
trine far  clearer  in  the  mouth  of  Paul  than  in  that 
of  John.  A  crucified  Saviour  is  more  than  a  Lamb 
of  God  yet  to  come  ;  a  Holy  Ghost  present,  more 
than  a  Holy  Ghost  promised  ;  but  the  doctrines  and 
fundamental  ideas  of  both  baptisms  are  identical, 
they  differ  only  through  the  circumstances  and  time 
of  their  taking  place.  Moreover,  all  this  develop- 
ment was  not  effected  suddenly  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost ;  it  was  the  work  of  years,  and  with  it  pro- 
gressed also  the  spiritual  import  of  baptism. 

This  identity  is  further  proved  by  other  sacra- 
ments which  have  been  placed  in  analogous  circum- 
stances of  development.  "The  circumcision  of 
Moses "  (Acts  xv.  1)  was  essentially  the  circum- 
cision of  Abraham,  and  the  Lord  says  so  (John  vii. 
22).     But  this  ceremony,  while  remaining  the  same 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     107 

in  substance,  the  same  as  to  subjects  who  are  to  re- 
ceive it,  the  same  in  its  innermost  idea,  was  bound 
after  Moses  to  a  far  more  developed  doctrine  than  in 
the  days  of  Abraham.  Under  all  circumstances  and 
changes  it  remained  always  the  sign  of  the  Cove- 
nant, but  the  Covenant  itself  was  undergoing  new 
developments,  while  the  ceremony  of  initiation  re- 
mained one  and  the  same,  and  no  one  claimed  that 
there  were  two  circumcisions.  It  would  be  just  as 
erroneous  to  conclude  for  two  baptisms,  because  of 
the  developments  which  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
Covenant  has  undergone  from  the  days  of  John  the 
Baptist  to  those  of  the  Apostles.  On  the  same  prin- 
ciple we  should  have  two  Lord's  Suppers.  The  first 
instituted  by  the  Lord  himself,  previous  to  his  death 
and  the  establishment  of  the  Church,  and  celebrated 
in  view  of  a  coming  sacrifice  ;  while  we  take  now 
the  Lord's  Supper  in  remembrance  of  a  sacrifice 
already  accomplished.  It  recalls  to  our  minds 
details  of  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  ;  it  evokes  a  whole  circle  of  ideas  which  exist- 
ed but  in  germ  at  the  time  of  its  first  celebration. 
This  sacramental  ceremony  has  undergone,  there- 
fore, no  change  in  the  form,  but  some  in  its  hidden 
meaning,  has  received  spiritual  developments  at 
least  as  considerable  as  those  of  the  baptism  of 
water,  yet  it  is  always  the  same  holy  supper,  as  it 
is  also  always  the  same  baptism. 


108  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

§  44.  The  whole  History  of  Baptism,  from 
John  the  Baptist  to  Paul,  shows  its  Unity  and 
Identity.  —  A  rapid  glance  at  the  history  of  John's 
baptism,  from  its  beginning  until  the  time  when  it 
is  supposed  to  have  made  room  for  a  new  baptism, 
will  confirm  us  still  more  as  to  its  identity  with 
that  conferred  by  the  Apostles  after  Pentecost.  Let 
us  first  remark  that  this  name,  "  Baptism  of  John," 
is  imparted  to  it  in  the  Gospel,  from  its  origin,  and 
before  the  existence  of  Christian  baptism  proper. 
(Luke  vii.  29 ;  Matt.  xxi.  25.)  What  could  this  ex- 
pression mean,  since  this  baptism  "  was  not  really  of 
John,  but  of  heaven  "  ?  The  name  must  undoubt- 
edly have  been  given,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  other 
water  baptisms  which  existed  before,  and  were  prac- 
tised according  to  the  law  of  Moses.  The  baptism 
of  John  did  not  differ  from  these  as  to  the  form,  but 
was  specifically  another,  by  a  spiritual  sense  more 
developed  ;  it  was  a  baptism  of  repentance.  John, 
as  prophet,  was  the  first  to  introduce  it  and  practise 
it,  and  hence  its  appellation. 

This  baptism  came,  then,  from  heaven,  and,  not- 
withstanding the  name  the  people  gave  it,  it  was 
not  the  human  invention  of  John ;  he  teaches  us 
so  himself,  when  he  says,  "  He  that  sent  me  to  bap- 
tize with  water,  the  same  said  to  me,"  etc.  (John  i. 
33.)  But  is  it  credible  that  God,  to  introduce 
the  New   Covenant,  should  have  needed  two  dis- 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     109 

tinct  and  successive  water-baptisms  ;  that  he  should 
have  instituted  one,  that  of  John,  to  last  just  six 
months,  or  at  most  three  years  and  a  half,  until 
the  Pentecost  ?  It  would  be  without  precedent  in 
the  rest  of  Revelation  that  the  Lord  should  have 
instituted  such  an  ephemeral  sacrament,  such  a 
short-lived  ceremony,  and  it  is  unworthy  of  the 
Almighty  to  suppose  such  volatility  in  his  counsels. 
Jesus  Christ  arrives  on  the  scene,  and  his  dis- 
ciples begin  also  to  baptize,  and  their  baptism  is 
performed  under  the  responsibility  of  Jesus  as  being 
his  own  baptism.  (John  iv.  1,  2.)  "  The  Phari- 
sees had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John,  though  Jesus  himself  baptized 
not,  but  his  disciples."  Nothing  points  out  then 
the  slightest  difference  between  the  baptism  of  John 
and  the  baptism  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples.  On  the 
contrary,  the  disciples  of  John  are  jealous  of  the 
great  number  of  baptisms  performed  by  those  of 
Jesus  (John  iii.  26  ;  iv.  1) ,  and  their  master  does 
not  reply,  that  with  the  same  external  form  another 
new  baptism  is  conferred,  which  they  cannot  per- 
form, but  his  answer  implies  that  there  was  but  one 
and  the  same  water-baptism  for  the  two  parties. 
Therefore  it  is  generally  granted  that  the  baptism 
practised  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus  before  his  death 
was  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  John,  and  that  first 
at  Pentecost  was  the  transition  to  the  new  baptism 
made. 


110  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

Neither  does  Scripture  place  the  ministry  of  John 
and  his  baptism  outside  of  the  New  Covenant  and 
as  antecedent  to  it,  but  it  considers  them  as  integral 
parts  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  its  beginning, 
its  starting-point.  This  is  set  forth  by  several  decla- 
rations. In  Luke  ill.  18,  we  are  told  by  the  origi- 
nal, "  John  the  Baptist  evangelized  to  the  people." 
He  who  evangelizes  is  on  the  same  ground  with  the 
Apostles,  and  belongs,  with  them,  to  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation. When  the  Apostles  make  choice  of  one 
to  replace*  Judas,  it  is  required  that  the  new  Apostle 
should  have  been  a  witness  of  all  the  facts  of  the 
new  economy,  "  beginning  from  the  baptism  of 
John."  (Acts  i.  22.)  Peter  also  places  the  bap- 
tism of  John  as  the  first  fact  of  Christianity  (Acts 
x.  37),  and  Paul  does  the  same  (Acts  xiii.  24). 

When  Jesus  Christ  gave  the  holy  supper  to  his 
disciples,  they  had  then  been  baptized  with  no  other 
baptism  than  that  of  John,  and  had  there  been 
two  baptisms,  the  holy  supper  would  have  preceded 
Christian  baptism,  instead  of  the  latter  serving  as 
initiation.  When,  after  his  resurrection,  Jesus  gave 
to  his  disciples  the  order  to  go  forth  and  baptize  the 
nations,  —  Christian  baptism  not  having  begun  yet, 
—  the  order  should  have  been  :  "  Do  not  henceforth 
baptize  with  the  same  baptism  which  you  have  hith- 
erto practised,  but  use  a  new  water-baptism."  There 
is  of  course,  no  trace  of  such  an  important  change, 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.     Ill 

and  it  is  revolting  to  Christian  feeling  to  think  that 
the  Apostles  should  have  successively  practised  two 
baptisms,  and  led  into  error  the  people  and  future 
ages  by  retaining  absolutely  the  same  form  for 
a  ceremony  essentially  different.  When  Jesus  is 
about  ascending  to  heaven,  he  imparts  to  the  dis- 
ciples his  last  instructions,  and  they  refer  to  bap- 
tism. (Acts  i.  5.)  He  repeats  to  them,  after  John 
the  Baptist,  that  there  are  two  baptisms,  that  of 
water,  and  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  first  they 
had  already  received  from  John ;  the  second  alone 
was  yet  to  come,  and  the  Lord  does  not  mention  a 
third  as  also  coming.  To  him,  the  baptism  of  John 
is  the  baptism  of  water.  He  does  not  make  the 
slightest  allusion  to  a  Christian  water-baptism  dif- 
ferent from  that.  It  would  have  been  a  new  insti- 
tution, of  the  origin  and  character  of  which  no  trace 
has  been  left,  and  of  which  Jesus  Christ  has  not 
said  a  single  word,  at  the  very  moment  when  he  is 
supposed  to  have  introduced  it.  The  Pentecost 
comes,  and  with  it  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  often  promised,  and  which  the  twelve  are  the  first 
to  receive.  Are  then  the  Apostles  re-baptized  with 
water  ?  Not  one.  They  never  receive  this  pre- 
tended Christian  baptism.  The  baptism  of  John  is 
their  only  water-baptism.  Apollos  also,  who  had 
received  John's  baptism,  is  not  re-baptized  when 
converted  and  brought  over  to  a  full  knowledge  of 


112  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  Gospel.  (Acts  xviii.  26.)  Finally,  the  differ- 
ence which  was  thought  by  some  to  exist  between 
the  two  water-baptisms,  inasmuch  as  the  Christian 
one  conferred  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  does  not 
really  exist,  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  obtained  at 
baptism,  but  only  afterwards  by  a  distinct  opera- 
tion, namely,  the  laying  on  of  hands.  Indeed,  the 
Christian  water-baptism  conferred  by  Philip  on  the 
Samaritans  (Acts  viii.  12)  did  not  impart  to  them 
aught  more  than  John's  baptism.  It  was  necessary 
that  two  Apostles,  Peter  and  John,  should  come 
down  expressly  from  Jerusalem,  some  time  later,  to 
add  to  their  baptism  of  water,  and  through  prayer 
(ver.  14),  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Thus,  by  following  up  the  history  of  the  baptism 
of  water,  from  John  the  Baptist  until  after  the 
foundation  of  the  Church,  we  can  nowhere  find  a 
point  of  transition  to  help  us  from  one  baptism  to 
another.  All  that  has  been  said  on  the  existence 
of  these  two  baptisms  and  their  point  of  transi- 
tion is  mere  hypothesis,  without  even  the  shadow 
of  a  proof.  While,  on  the  contrary,  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  neither  through  their  words  nor 
through  their  practice,  ever  acknowledge  but  one 
baptism  of  water,  which  Scripture  calls  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  and  which  continues  up  to  this  day. 
Those  who,  like  Apollos,  knew  nothing  but  the 
baptism  of  John,  knew  in  fact  nothing  but  the- 


THE  BAPTISM   OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST.  113 

baptism  of  water,  that  is  to  say,  the  rudiments 
of  the  Gospel,  what  belongs  to  its  initiation.  In 
our  subsequent  researches,  therefore,  we  shall  look 
upon  as  synonymous  expressions  these  Scriptural 
words,  "baptism  of  John"  and  "baptism  of  water"; 
and  we  shall  gather  from  the  whole  New  Testament, 
beginning  with  John  the  Baptist,  our  data  upon 
water-baptism,  its  mode,  the  subjects  that  are  to 
receive  it,  and  its  spiritual  meaning. 


CHAPTER    V. 

BAPTISM  BEFORE  FAITH. 

§  45.  Necessity  of  a  Progress  of  both  Parties 
in  the  Question  of  Baptism.  —  Having  already 
expressed  our  conclusions  on  the  form  of  baptism, 
and  having  recognized  besides  that  under  the 
new  dispensation  there  is  but  one  water-baptism, 
namely,  that  of  John,  the  time  has  come  now  to 
turn  our  investigations  towards  the  class  of  persons 
upon  whom  it  should  be  conferred.  This  is  an 
apple  of  discord  between  the  Evangelical  Christians 
of  the  day.  The  minority,  the  Baptists,  have  in- 
scribed on  their  flag  the  device,  "  The  baptism  of 
believers  alone,"  and  have  excluded  infants  from 
all  participation  in  this  ceremony.  The  majority, 
the  Pedobaptists,  accept  in  full  the  Baptist  device 
as  to  adults,  but  reject  it  as  to  infants,  for  they 
baptize  generally  no  adults  except  believers,  but 
baptize  also  infants,  who,  whatever  might  be  said 
to  the  contrary,  do  not  believe  at  all.  Thus  it  is 
the  relation  held  by  water-baptism  to  faith  which 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  115 

is  differently  understood  by  the  two  parties,  upon 
which  they  cannot  agree,  and  for  which  they  war 
together,  and  often  excommunicate  each  other. 
Such  serious  and  prolonged  disagreement  between 
sincere  Christians  sufficiently  indicates  that  here 
lies  a  difficulty  which  has  not  yet  received  a  per- 
fectly satisfactory  solution.  It  must  be  therefore 
allowable  for  any  Bible-Christian  to  seek  one,  even 
were  it  different  from  that  of  either  of  the  two 
opposing  parties.  The  apparent  novelty  of  an  ex- 
planation ought  not  to  deter,  provided  it  springs 
from  Scriptural  facts.  For  if  unity  is  ever  reached 
on  this  question,  it  will  not  be  by  holding  each 
exclusively  to  the  formulas  of  his  own  party,  but 
rather  by  trying  new  paths,  which  may  lead  to 
some  modification  of  the  usual  theories  of  bap- 
tism. We  have  endeavored  to  contribute  for  our 
own  part  to  this  result,  and,  the  better  to  study  un- 
fettered the  facts  imparted  by  Scripture,  we  have 
begun  by  laying  aside  all  former  notions,  both 
Baptist  and  Pedobaptist,  so  as  to  reach  indepen- 
dent conclusions.  The  result  has  led  us,  it  is  true, 
to  the  Pedobaptist  practice,  but  at  the  same  time  to 
a  doctrine  which  is  strictly  that  of  neither  Baptists 
nor  Pedobaptists. 

§  46.    The  only  Three   Opinions   possible  on 
the  Relation  of  Baptism  to  Faith.  —  The  rela- 


116  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

tion  of  baptism  to  faith  can  offer  but  three  alter- 
natives :  —  1st.  Baptism  always  after  faith  ;  this 
is  the  Baptist  opinion.  2d.  Baptism  before  and 
after  faith,  —  before  for  the  children  and  after 
for  the  adults ;  this  is  the  Pedobaptist  opinion. 
3d.  Baptism  always  before  faith.  This  last  is 
our  opinion,  which  happens  to  be  neither  Baptist 
nor  Pedobaptist,  but  upon  which  alone  we  think 
that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  can  obtain  a 
solid  foundation.  The  Baptist  opinion,  as  can  be 
seen  at  a  glance,  enjoys,  as  well  as  ours,  perfect 
simplicity  and  clearness.  It  has  in  this  a  great 
advantage  over  the  Pedobaptist  opinion,  which  is 
complex,  and  implies  an  evident  contradiction. 
Why  adopt  two  rules  acting  inversely  to  each 
other,  —  baptism  always  after  faith  for  adults, 
and  baptism  always  before  faith  for  infants  ? 
Moreover,  there  is  between  infancy  and  manhood 
an  age  of  transition  for  which  the  double  rule  op- 
erates very  badly,  becomes  uncertain,  and  is  practi- 
cable only  through  an  arbitrary  choice.  The  conse- 
quence is,  that,  to  many  logical  minds,  Pedobaptism 
appears  as  a  doctrine  full  of  contradictions,  uncer- 
tainties, and  arbitrariness,  and  this  feeling  drives 
them,  often  with  regret,  but  through  conscientious- 
ness, logical  consistency,  and  need  of  certainty, 
into  the  Baptist  idea,  which  appears  to  them  alone 
satisfactory.     The  finger  must  be  laid  on  the  weak 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  117 

spot ;  it  is  useless  and  dangerous  to  cherish  any- 
longer  illusions.  The  constant  going  over  to  Bap- 
tist principles  of  excellent  men  and  conscientious 
ministers  is  a  fact  very  serious,  but  not  without  a 
cause  which  calls  for  a  remedy.  It  is  Pedobaptism 
in  its  present  shape  which  brings  forth  Anabaptism, 
leads  to  it,  and  will  continue  to  operate  in  the  same 
direction,  until  it  has  revised  its  own  doctrine,  in 
order  to  rest  its  practice  on  better  foundations  than 
heretofore.  This  adoption  of  two  contradictory  rules 
in  reference  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  and  the  ar- 
bitrary practice  which  follows,  are  the  cause  that 
the  Pedobaptist  doctrine  is  so  vague,  so  difficult  to 
grasp,  and  so  unsatisfactory  to  minds  in  want  of 
clear  and  definite  notions.  Such  vagueness  does 
not  only  give  a  vantage-ground  to  Baptist  principle, 
but  it  also  spoils  Pedobaptism,  and  brings  it  into 
confusion  and  misty  error.  The  shelter  afforded 
by  vagueness,  combined  with  the  love  of  tangible 
notions,  explain  why  so  many  mystical  and  super- 
stitious ideas  are  connected  with  infant  baptism, 
assimilating  it  more  or  less  to  a  sacramental  mira- 
cle, and  thus  creating  in  the  bosom  of  many  Evan- 
gelical Christians  an  aversion  for  the  practice. 

But  we  are  anticipating  conclusions  which  must 
result  from  the  study  of  facts.  Let  us  therefore 
begin  by  a  scrupulous  examination  of  all  the  cases 
of  baptism  related  in  the  New  Testament,  and  let 


118  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  question  be  asked  before  each,  separately,. "Did 
the  ceremony  take  place  before  or  after  faith  ? " 
"We  can  thus  show  how  we  have  been  forcibly  led  to 
adopt  the  opinion  which  we  profess.  To  prevent 
all  misunderstanding,  however,  let  it  be  first  well 
understood  that  in  our  definition  we  mean  by  faith 
precisely  what  the  Baptists  mean,  not  mere  external 
assent,  not  historical  faith,  but  the  faith  that  saves, 
justifying  faith ;  that  which  Baptists  require  for 
admission  to  both  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
This  being  well  understood,  we  say  that  the  Apos- 
tles have  always  and  invariably  conferred  baptism 
before  justifying  faith.  And  if  we  make  good  this 
point,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  the  whole  Baptist 
practice  must  be  rejected  as  anti-Biblical. 

§  47.    The  Baptism  of  John  was  not  a  Bap- 
tism of  Believers  but  of  the  Unconverted.  —  The 

first  baptisms  performed  under  the  new  dispensa- 
tion, are  those  of  John  the  Baptist.  They  were 
very  numerous,  and  also,  with  the  exception  of  that 
of  Jesus  Christ,  very  uniform.  He  baptized  im- 
mense crowds,  for  "  Jerusalem  and  all  Judasa,  and 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went  out  to  him 
and  were  baptized  of  him."  (Matt.  hi.  5,  6.) 
This  number,  as  we  have  already  shown  while  treat- 
ing of  immersion  (§  26),  must  have  reached  about 
half  a  million.     We  would,  however,  be  satisfied  for 


BAPTISM   BEFORE  FAITH.  119 

our  argument  with  ten  thousand,  and  even  much 
less.  Now  did  John  baptize  these  people  after  faith, 
or,  what  comes  to  the  same,  were  this  crowd,  these 
five  hundred  thousand,  believers  ?  Much  thought 
is  not  needed  to  enable  one  to  answer  with  the  most 
entire  confidence,  No !  These  were  not  all  believers. 
Had  they  been  converted,  the  Lord  would  not  have 
called  them  a  little  later  a  perverse  and  adulterous 
generation ;  he  would  not  have  grieved  that  there 
were  so  many  called  and  so  few  chosen  ;  he  would 
not  have  been  crucified  by  this  very  people  of  Jeru- 
salem, who  had  flocked  to  receive  the  baptism  of 
John ;  and,  three  years  after  the  death  of  the  Fore- 
runner, the  first  Christian  church  would  not  have 
been  composed  of  a  mere  handful  of  disciples,  gath- 
ered in  an  upper  chamber,  but  the  whole  country 
would  have  risen  at  the  call  of  the  Apostles,  and 
the  land  have  been  rapidly  covered  with  Christian 
churches.  But  the  result  shows,  beyond  all  cavil, 
that  the  baptism  of  John,  that  is  to  say,  the  baptism 
of  water,  was  not  a  baptism  of  believers  ;  and  if  it 
was  not  so  then,  it  never  became  such  afterwards, 
for  otherwise  it  would  have  been  an  entirely  new 
sacrament,  entirely  different  from  the  former,  which 
would  be  contrary  to  Scripture. 

§  48.    The  Baptized  of  John  gave  only  an  Ex- 
ternal Assent  to  his  Preaching:.  —  It  will  then  be 


120  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

asked,  If  not  believers,  whom  then  did  John  bap- 
tize ?  The  Gospel  tells  us  that  they  were  people 
who  repented,  or  rather  professed  repentance,  who 
confessed  their  sins,  in  reference  to  the  near  coming 
of  the  Messiah.  (Matt,  iii.)  This  confession  of  sins 
did  not  enter  into  the  details  of  the  private  life  of 
each  individual,  for  the  ministry  of  John  would  not 
have  been  equal  to  it,  and  besides  it  would  have 
been  an  anticipated  Romanism.  It  was  a  general 
confession  of  impurity  and  of  the  need  which  man 
has  to  be  washed  of  his  sins  by  Divine  mercy, 
in  order  to  partake  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Such  a  general  confession  is  obtained  still,  at  the 
present  day,  without  much  difficulty,  and  very  sin- 
cerely, from  the  great  mass  of  men.  They  recog- 
nize willingly  enough  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  and 
the  supremacy  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  confess  that 
they  are  sinners,  that  they  need  salvation  and  puri- 
fication from  their  sins.  It  is  doubtless  an  impor- 
tant confession,  a  basis  for  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel ;  but,  nevertheless,  those  who  make  it  are 
far  from  being  converted,  far  from  being  believers, 
in  the  exalted  and  spiritual  sense  attached  to  this 
word.  Had  John  limited  his  baptism  to  believers 
alone,  to  those  who  gave  proof  of  conversion  and 
of  a  change  of  heart,  he  would  not  have  found  fifty 
persons  to  baptize,  perhaps  not  even  twelve,  instead 
of  half  a  million.    Those  baptized  by  John,  taken  as 


BAPTISM    BEFORE   FAITH.  121 

a  whole,  were  certainly  neither  more  enlightened, 
nor  nearer  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  than  the  mass  of 
nominal  Christians  who  crowd  into  our  Protestant 
churches.  It  was  a  people  of  the  called,  but  not 
of  the  chosen.  And  yet  the  disciples  partake  of  the 
Holy  Supper,  at  the  hands  of  the  Lord,  when  they 
had  received  no  other  external  initiation  to  the 
Church  than  this  multitudinous  baptism  of  John. 
With  the  exception  of  Judas,  they  had  doubtless 
become  believers  ;  otherwise  the  Lord  would  not 
have  given  them  the  Supper ;  but  their  faith  had 
followed,  and* not  preceded,  their  baptism. 

§  49.  Jesus  receives  the  Baptism  of  Water 
before  tliat  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  —  With  the  crowd, 
and  coming  one  of  the  last  (Luke  iii.  21),  Jesus 
Christ  presents  himself  to  John  to  be  baptized.  The 
Forerunner  is  awed  at  the  thought  of  baptizing  the 
Messiah.  "  He  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to 
be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  him,  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for 
thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness." 
There  can  be  no  talk  here  of  a  baptism  before  or 
after  faith  ;  for  Jesus,  having  never  sinned,  did 
neither  repent  nor  believe.  His  baptism,  like  his 
circumcision,  and  like  his  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over, is  a  "  righteousness,"  which  it  becometh  him 
to  fulfil,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man,  and  must 


122  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

serve  as  a  model  to  man  in  the  accomplishment  of 
religious  duties.  Besides,  inasmuch  as  he  partici- 
pated in  human  nature,  which  is  defiled,  it  was 
becoming  that  he  should  receive  in  his  flesh  the 
external  sign  of  purification.  But  even  in  his  bap- 
tism, it  was  his  intention  to  impart  to  his  disciples 
and  to  future  ages  a  great  lesson,  namely,  that  the 
baptism  of  water  must  precede  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized, 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water :  and  lo,  the 
heavens  were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the 
Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting 
upon  him :  and  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying, 
This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  Such,  then,  is  the  instruction  which 
Jesus  gives  us  through  his  baptism ;  —  the  unc- 
tion of  the  Spirit  and  the  adoption  of  the  Father 
bestowed  after  the  baptism  of  water.  This  instruc- 
tion of  the  Lord  has  been  set  at  naught  by  the 
Baptists  ;  for  they  teach  that  the  unction  of  the 
Spirit  and  adoption  must  precede  their  baptism, 
and  they  baptize  only  the  believer  who  has  received 
already  the  Spirit  and  adoption. 

And  let  no  attempt  be  made  to  lessen  the  value 
of  this  instruction  by  claiming  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  here  put  to  signify  the  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  for  these  were  not  known  until 
after  Pentecost.     This  Spirit  of  God  received  after 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  123 

water-baptism  was  the  same  Spirit  which  led  Jesus 
into  the  wilderness  (Matt.  iv.  1),  and  certainly  it 
was  not  the  gifts  that  led  him  away,  but  the  Spirit 
as  a  person,  or  at  least  a  divine  influence.  The 
Spirit  of  the  Father  spoke  in  the  disciples  before 
Pentecost  (Matt.  x.  20).  The  miraculous  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  were  represented  by  tongues  of 
fire,  while  the  Spirit  as  a  person,  the  sanctifying 
Spirit,  came  under  the  winged,  celestial,  and  per- 
sonal figure  of  a  dove.  The  Spirit  of  truth,  the 
Comforter,  does  not  consist  exclusively  in  one  of 
his  external  manifestations,  namely,  extraordinary 
gifts,  but  in  that  Spirit  which  receives  every  man 
who  believes.  (John  iii.  5 ;  vii.  39.)  If  any  man 
have  not  this  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of -his 
(Rom.  viii.  9),  and  nevertheless  all  Christians  had 
not  received  spiritual  gifts.  This  is  the  Spirit 
which  is  shed  in  our  hearts,  with  which  we  are 
sealed,  which  is  the  earnest  of  our  redemption,  and 
which  is  received  only  after  faith.  "  After  that  ye 
believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit." 
"  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye 
are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption."  "  By  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized,  and  we  have  been  all 
made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  (Eph.  i.  13  ;  iv. 
30  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  13.)  This  same  Spirit  which  is 
imparted  to  the  believer  was  undoubtedly  with 
Jesus  from  the  beginning,  but  he  received   it   in 


124  THE    BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

an  official  and  ostensible  manner  only  after  the 
baptism  of  water.  Immediately  after,  but  not 
before. 

§  50.    The   Multitudinous   Baptisms  of  Jesus 

Christ.  —  The  numerous  baptisms  of  John  are  fol- 
lowed by  the  baptisms  of  Jesus  Christ,  administered 
through  his  disciples.  But  it  is  ever  the  same 
multitudinous  baptism,  conferred  upon  people  who 
have  not  saving  faith,  but  only  repent  and  give  an 
external  adherence  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 
Thus,  the  disciples  of  John  complain  that  "  Jesus 
baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  Again,  "  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John."  (John  iii.  26 ;  iv.  1, 
2.)  Which  does  not  mean  that  in  total  Jesus  had 
baptized  more  people  than  John,  which  would  be 
impossible,  but  that,  at  the  time  when  Jesus  entered 
on  his  ministry,  the  crowd  which  continued  coming 
to  be  baptized  had  divided  itself  between  John  and 
Jesus,  and  that  the  Lord  was  beginning  to  receive 
the  preference,  baptizing  then  more  people  than 
John.  But  it  was  exactly  the  same  baptism,  bap- 
tism of  the  multitude,  national  baptism.  John  the 
Baptist  preached  very  severely  to  them,  calling 
them  "  generation  of  vipers"  ;  but  for  all  that  it  is 
not  seen  that  in  a  single  instance  he  had  refused 
baptism  to  any  one  who  wanted  it. 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  125 

We  must  not  be  surprised,  therefore,  in  seeing 
several  of  these  new  disciples,  after  they  have  been 
baptized  and  have  followed  the  Lord  for  some  time, 
grow  cold  and  abandon  him.  The  Lord  himself 
was  saying  to  those  he  had  admitted  to  baptism, 
"  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not." 
(John  vi.  6-4  -  66.)  For  he  knew  from  the  begin- 
ning which  were  those  amongst  the  baptized  that 
would  believe,  and  which  that  would  persevere  in 
their  incredulity,  notwithstanding  their  baptism. 
(See  also  xi.  15.)  The  fact  is,  that  the  ministry 
of  the  Lord  was  spent  in  preaching  the  Gospel  to 
these  unconverted  masses,  which  had  been  baptized 
with  water,  but  not  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  which 
it  was  necessary,  after  their  baptism,  to  urge  to 
believe.  The  first  of  the  Apostles,  Peter,  had  him- 
self been  baptized  while  in  an  unconverted  state, 
and  it  is  only  long  after,  that  the  first  germ  of 
true  faith  was  exhibited  by  him.  (Matt.  xvi.  16.) 
Therefore  was  the  Lord  saying  to  him  long  after 
his  baptism,  "  When  thou  art  converted,  strengthen 
thy  brethren."     (Luke  xxii.  32.) 

We  reach  thus  the  death  of  our  Saviour,  and 
even  to  Pentecost,  without  meeting  in  the  Gospel 
any  other  baptism  than  that  of  the  masses  and 
the  unconverted.  Of  the  large  numbers  who  lis- 
tened to  the  preaching,  the  avowed  enemies  of  the 
Lord  alone — namely,  some  Pharisees  and  lawyers — 


126  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

were  not  baptized  ;  and  yet  they  were  not  excluded, 
but  they  voluntarily  abstained.  (Luke  vii.  30  ;  xx. 
1  -  7.)  "  They  did  not  believe  him,  and  they  were 
not  baptized";  that  is  to  say  that  they  gave  no 
adherence  to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and 
through  this  absence  of  baptism,  through  this  re- 
fusal of  formal  assent,  "  they  rejected  the  counsel 
of  God  against  themselves."  These  unconverted, 
however,  who  caused  themselves  to  be  baptized, 
were  certainly  well-disposed  people,  who  experi- 
enced religious  wants,  who  felt  themselves  drawn 
towards  the  Gospel ;  they  would  not  otherwise  have 
taken  the  trouble  to  proceed  as  far  as  the  desert, 
to  listen  there  to  the  preaching  of  John  and  of  the 
Lord,  and  they  would  not  have  consented  to  receive 
baptism. 

§  51.  The  Three  Thousand  baptized  after 
Pentecost  were  of  the  Called,  and  not  of  the 
Chosen.  —  We  have  thus  far  found  all  the  practice 
of  John  the  Baptist,  and  all  that  of  the  Lord,  not 
only  different  from  that  of  the  Baptists,  but  just  the 
reverse.  It  is  even  impossible  to  imagine  a  more 
flagrant  contradiction.  But  perhaps  the  Apostles 
have  taken  the  lead,  and  given  the  example  in  this 
subversion,  and  have  hastened,  after  the  death  of 
their  Master,  to  undo  his  work,  to  contradict  his 
principles,  and  to  re-baptize  after  faith  those  whom 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  127 

he  had  baptized  before  they  were  truly  converted. 
Let  us  see. 

At  the  first  baptism  performed  after  Pentecost, 
the  Apostles  baptize  no  less  than  three  thousand  at 
one  time,  and  in  a  single  afternoon.  (Acts  ii.  41.) 
Here  is  certainly  the  same  multitudinous  baptism 
as  that  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  the  Lord ;  there 
can  be  no  mistake  about  it.  The  circumstances 
attendant  upon  this  mass  baptism  are,  for  the  Bap- 
tist point  of  view,  still  more  aggravating  than  all 
previously  related.  It  was  a  multitude  of  people 
who  had  gathered  together  in  the  street  during  the 
forenoon,  and  those  in  part  strangers  (ver.  6-11). 
Some  had  come  through  curiosity,  others  to  mock 
(ver.  12,  13).  Then  Peter  preaches  unto  them  the 
Gospel,  denounces  their  unbelief  and  hard-hearted- 
ness,  and  reproaches  them  twice  with  being  the 
murderers  of  Jesus  Christ  (ver.  23  and  36).  The 
heart  of  these  people  is  moved,  and  they  ask  what 
they  shall  do,  for  they  have  as  yet  no  knowledge  of 
the  Gospel,  except  what  they  have  just  heard,  and 
can  express  but  a  vague  feeling  of  acceptance  of 
what  Peter  has  said.  The  Apostle  urges  them  to 
be  baptized  immediately,  not  because  they  have  be- 
lieved and  possess  the  faith  that  saves,  for  on  the 
contrary  he  has  just  told  them,  "  Be  baptized  every 
one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins."  (ver.  38). 
He  places  the  remission  of  sins,  or  what  comes  to 


128  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  same,  saving  faith,  after  baptism,  and  puts  before 
only  the  desire  of  pardon,  for  which  a  feeble  germ 
of  repentance  is  sufficient.  The  order  of  the  Apostle 
-runs  thus  :  1st,  Repent,  that  is,  desire  to  do  better  ; 
2d,  Be  baptized  ;  3d,  After  baptism,  strive  to  obtain 
the  remission  of  your  sins  by  believing ;  4th,  After 
faith,  if  so  be  that  you  believe,  you  shall  certainly 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  all  is  con- 
tained in  verse  38,  and  the  place  assigned  by  the 
Apostle  to  the  baptism  of  water  in  the  work  of  re- 
generation, is  placed  between  external  assent  and 
saving  faith,  as  an  intermediary,  which  aids  in  pass- 
ing from  one  to  the  other. 

Happily,  the  narrative  of  this  first  baptism  after 
Pentecost  has  been  made  to  us  in  so  detailed  and 
complete  a  manner,  that  we  may  arrive  at  conclu- 
sions which  surpass  in  certainty  those  drawn  from 
subsequent  and  less  circumstantial  narrations  of 
baptism.  Thus  the  text  imparts  to  us  an  additional 
light  upon  the  religious  character  of  these  three 
thousand,  by  telling  us  (ver.  41)  that  "  all  who  re- 
ceived his  word  gladly  "  were  baptized.  The  sub- 
jects of  the  baptism  of  the  Apostles  are  there  very 
clearly  determined,  for  Scripture  designedly  makes 
use  of  an  expression  explained  by  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self at  length,  and  which  leaves  no  room  for  doubt. 
In  Matt.  xiii.  he  depicts,  under  the  form  of  the 
Parable  of  the  Sower,  all  those  who  listen  to  the 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  129 

word,  and  arranges  them  in  several  classes.  First, 
we  must  carefully  distinguish  those  who  listen  to 
the  word  from  those  who  do  not  listen  to  it,  either 
from  indifference  or  from  aversion.  Those  who 
listen  are  those  who  feel  themselves  drawn  by  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  who  receive  it  favor- 
ably ;  these  are  evidently  the  three  thousand  bap- 
tized of  our  text  "  who  had  gladly  received  the 
word  "  which  Peter  had  addressed  to  them.  Now 
the  Saviour  says  that,  amongst  those  who  listen  to 
the  word,  there  are  some  who  "  receive  it "  as  seed 
cast  by  the  wayside  ;  it  does  not  long  remain,  the 
fowls  devour  it.  Others  receive  it  in  stony  places  ; 
"  they  hear  the  word,  and  receive  it  with  joy  "  (ver. 
20) ,  precisely  like  the  three  thousand ;  but  it  has 
no  root,  and  soon  are  these  disciples  offended.  Oth- 
ers still  receive  the  word  amongst  thorns.  Others, 
finally,  receive  the  word  into  a  good  ground,  and  it 
bears  fruit ;  but  this  is  by  far  the  smaller  number, 
for,  says  the  Lord,  there  are  many  called,  but  few 
chosen.  Our  three  thousand  have  then  most  cer- 
tainly received  a  baptism  of  calling,  but  not  a  bap- 
tism of  faith  and  conversion.  There  is  not,  in  these 
three  thousand  baptisms,  the  shadow  of  a  trace  of 
Baptist  discipline.  An  hour  before  their  baptism, 
these  were  hardened  hearts  whom  Peter  reproaches 
with  having  crucified  the  Lord.  Many  are  moved, 
and  listen  with  compunction  to  this  severe  preach- 

6*  I 


130  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

ing,  and  immediately,  without  examination,  without 
delay,  without  individual  confession,  without  per- 
sonal acquaintance,  the  Apostles  hasten  to  baptize 
these  assassins  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  baptize  un- 
known men  ;  they  baptize  all  who  present  them- 
selves, without  refusal  and  without  selection.  Their 
sincerity  is  not  put  into  question,  for  it  is  sufficient- 
ly proved  from  the  fact  that  they  offer  themselves 
to  baptism,  and  the  act  of  the  ceremony  is  of  itself 
a  confession  of  sin  and  a  repentance,  expressed  in 
symbolical  language,  more  powerful  still  than  words. 
He  who  causes  himself  to  be  washed  publicly  with 
water  testifies  sufficiently  by  this  very  act  to  his  im- 
purity. What  a  contrast  with  Baptist  and  even 
with  Pedobaptist  practice !  Tf  the  Apostles  had  at 
least  postponed  this  baptism  to  the  morrow,  if  they 
had  but  waited  one  day  to  collect  information  on 
the  faith  of  these  new  disciples,  or  at  least  to  be 
sure  that  their  compunction  would  last  twenty-four 
hours !  But  no,  they  make  haste,  and  whosoever 
wishes  receives  baptism.  And,  on  this  very  day, 
three  thousand  are  added,  not  to  the  Church,  but 
simply  to  the  number  of  disciples  (ver.  41).  Such 
only  were  added  to  the  Church  as  believed  unto 
salvation  (ver.  47). 

§  52.    Mass  Baptism  of  Unconverted  Samari- 
tans who  believe,    but    not    unto    Salvation.  — 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  131 

After  this  detailed  recital  of  the  first  baptism  which 
followed  Pentecost,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  bap- 
tisms in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
until  that  of  the  Samaritans  (Acts  viii.).  But  this 
second  apostolic  baptism  is  quite  as  multitudinous 
as  the  first,  and  still  more  so  if  possible.  Philip 
preaches  in  the  city  of  Samaria  to  crowds,  who  are 
quite  attentive,  and  listen  to  him  especially  because 
they  saw  him  perform  miracles  (ver.  6).  Then  these 
crowds  "  believe,"  not  in  Jesus  Christ  nor  to  salva- 
tion, but  "  they  believe  Philip,  Philip  preaching," 
which  means  that  they  put  confidence  in  the  preach- 
ing of  Philip,  give  to  it  a  certain  assent.  Then  they 
are  all  baptized  in  a  mass  (ver.  12),  both  men  and 
women.  The  still  carnal  character  of  these  people, 
their  ignorance,  the  nature  of  their  belief,  and  their 
unconversion,  may  be  judged  of  from  the  fact  that 
Simon  Magus  also  believed,  was  also  baptized,  and 
was  the  most  zealous  of  these  new  disciples  ;  "  he 
continued  with  Philip,  and  wondered"  (ver.  13). 
And  nevertheless  he  had  not  yet  repented,  his  heart 
was  not  right,  and  he  had  no  part  with  the  Lord 
(ver.  20-23).  These  people  had  been  baptized  for 
some  time,  and  yet  not  one  of  them  had  received 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  became  necessary  to  pray  for 
them,  and  the  missionary  toil  of  the  Apostles  was 
also  indispensable  before  they  could  receive  this 
precious  unction  (ver.  14-17). 


132  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

§  53.    Tlie  Condition  exacted  at  the  Baptism 

of  the  Eunuch  is  not  Authentic.  —  At  last  we  meet 
with  a  baptism  which  appears  to  form  an  exception 
to  the  rule,  and  which  is  even  the  strongest  argu- 
ment of  the  Baptists  to  prove  that  baptism  should 
be  administered  only  after  faith ;  it  is  that  of  the 
eunuch  by  Philip.  "  The  eunuch  said,  See,  here 
is  water ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  and 
Philip  said,  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart, 
thou  mayest.     And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe 

that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God And 

Philip  baptized  him."  (Acts  viii.  36  -  38.)  Let 
us  first  remark,  that  after  having  established  the 
rule  followed  by  John  the  Baptist,  then  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  then  by  the  Apostles,  in  more  than  five 
hundred  thousand  baptisms,  the  exception  of  a 
single  baptism  could  not  have  great  weight.  But 
happily  the  exception  is  not  one,  and,  as  we  shall 
soon  see,  it  comes  perfectly  under  the  general  rule 
of  baptism  before  faith. 

First,  the  entire  37th  verse,  which  contains  this, 
"If  thou  believest,  thou  mayest,"  is  wanting  in  all 
the  old  and  best  manuscripts,  without  exception. 
In  the  small  number  of  modern  manuscripts  where 
it  is  found,  the  passage  is  full  of  variations,  which 
ehow  plainly  that  it  is  a  late  addition  made  to  the 
text  by  the  Fathers,  who  did  not  like  to  see  the 
eunuch  baptized  without  making  first  a  confession 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  133 

of  faith.  All  the  revisers  of  the  canon  are  unani- 
mous for  rejecting  this  spurious  sentence,  which  is 
certainly  not  inspired.  Now,  the  passage,  were  it 
only  doubtful,  is,  by  this  very  fact,  not  such  as  might 
serve  for  a  basis  upon  which  to  build  a  doctrine  in 
opposition  to  the  rest  of  the  Bible. 

Perhaps  some  will  cry  out  at  this,  as  if,  with  an 
impious  hand,  for  the  sake  of  Pedobaptism,  we 
dared  to  touch  the  sacred  text.  But  we  will 
promptly  impose  silence.  Let  criticism  be  trampled 
upon,  let  the  authority  of  manuscripts  be  denied, 
let  the  revisers  be  discarded,  but  let  at  least  the 
voice  of  a  Baptist,  eminent  through  faith  and  sci- 
ence, be  heard.  The  learned  English  theologian, 
Benjamin  Wills  Newton,  in  a  quite  recent  work 
against  Pedobaptism,  suppresses  completely  this 
verse  37,  and  says :  "  I  omit  the  intervening 
verse,  viz.  '  And  Philip  said,  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thy  heart,'  etc.,  because  it  is  universally 
admitted  that  the  whole  of  this  verse  is  an  interpola- 
tion. Nor  would  the  Scripture  so  speak.  If  such 
words  were  found  in  the  Scripture,  weak  believers 
might  long  torment  themselves  with  the  question, 
whether  they  believed  with  all  their  heart.  The 
Scripture  is  very  careful  never  to  represent  justify- 
ing faith  as  any  thing  else  than  simple  reliance," 
etc.     (Newton  on  Baptism,  I.  9.) 


134  THE  BAPTISM  OF   WATER. 

§  54.  There  is  an  Assenting  Faith  and  a  Justi- 
fying Faith ;  and  the  Funuch  believes  as  Simon 
Magus  believed.  —  If,  in  spite  of  such  testimonies, 
it  was  absolutely  insisted  to  retain  the  spurious 
verse  in  the  Word  of  God,  on  the  sole  authority  of 
the  version,  then  we  must  be  permitted  to  observe 
that  the  controverted  passage  is  far  from  sufficient 
to  prove  a  case  of  baptism  after  faith.  JFor  indeed 
Scripture  takes  the  word  "  believe  "  in  more  ac- 
ceptations than  one.  It  is  applied  not  only  to  sav- 
ing faith,  but  also  very  frequently  to  that  external 
assent  which  people  often  give  to  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel,  without  being  regenerated,  and  fre- 
quently also  to  simple  confidence  in  the  testimony 
of  another.  Peter  believed  with  saving  faith  (Matt, 
xvi.  16),  Judas  with  assenting  faith  (John  ii.  11). 
Charity  believes  everything,  but  the  disciples  did 
not  believe  Mary  Magdalene ;  and  upon  such  belief 
or  unbelief  does  not  depend  the  change  of  heart. 
This  assenting  faith,  which  precedes  justifying  faith 
but  is  not  the  same,  is  often  characterized  in  the 
Gospel.  "  When  Jesus  was  in  Jerusalem,  many 
believed  in  his  name,  but  Jesus  did  not  commit 
himself  unto  them,  because  he  knew  all  men." 
(John  ii.  23,  24.)  His  disciples  believe  on  him  at 
Cana  (ver.  11),  but  they  are  far  from  having  the 
true  faith  ;  and  it  is  not  until  three  years  later  (ver. 
22)  that  they  believe  unto  salvation.     Tins  explains 


BAPTISM  BEFORE   FAITH.  135 

also  why,  when  "  many  had  believed  on  him," 
Jesus  said  to  those  Jews  which  believed  on  him, 
"  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  my  dis- 
ciples indeed."  (John  viii.  30,  31.)  But  soon  after, 
these  very  same  believers  would  kill  Jesus,  who 
calls  them  the  children  of  the  devil,  and  with  diffi- 
culty escapes  from  the  stones  they  cast  at  him  (ver. 
37,  44,  59).  Elsewhere,  again,  we  are  told  that 
"  many  believed  on  him,  but  did  not  confess  him, 
for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the 
praise  of  God."  (John  xii.  42.)  But  why  seek 
instances  elsewhere  than  in  the  very  same  chapter 
where  is  recorded  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  or 
from  another  witness  than  Philip  himself.  The 
eunuch  "  believes "  through  Philip ;  very  well, 
but  Simon  Magus  "believed"  also  first  through 
Philip  (Acts  viii.  13).  Both  are  baptized  by  Philip 
on  the  same  professions.  What  the  faith  of  Simon 
Magus  was,  we  know  perfectly  ;  and  unless  Philip 
has  suddenly  and  arbitrarily  changed  his  practice, 
we  know  that  he  did  not  exact  from  the  eunuch  a 
different  faith.  It  is  clear  as  noonday  that  in 
neither  case  was  it  a  baptism  after  justifying  faith, 
but  only  after  the  first  external  assent  to  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel. 

§  55.    The  First  Baptism  of  a  Heathen  is  per- 
formed without  Witnesses,  with  Hesitancy  hut 


136  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

also  with  Precipitation.  —  But  this  is  not  all.  The 
eunuch  is  the  very  first  heathen  baptized  under  the 
Gospel,  just  as  Cornelius  was  the  second.  Hitherto 
Jews  only  had  been  baptized,  the  Apostles  had  not 
turned  yet  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  it  will  be  recollected 
after  what  hesitations,  what  scruples  of  conscience, 
they  decided  to  do  so.  There  is  therefore  nothing 
astonishing,  nothing  contrary  to  rule,  if  in  these  first 
two  baptisms  of  Gentiles  there  has  been  some  delay, 
some  hesitancy,  some  greater  caution  as  to  the  sin- 
cerity and  earnestness  of  the  candidates ;  indeed,  it 
would  be  astonishing  had  it  been  otherwise. 

For  the  rest,  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch  is  a  most 
precipitous  baptism,  without  premeditation  or  even 
a  moment  for  reflection ;  as  soon  as  first  thought  of, 
it  is  also  done,  and  is  in  every  respect  opposed  to 
Baptist  practice.  Only  an  instant  before  his  baptism 
he  has  heard  for  the  first  time  Biblical  instruction 
on  Jesus.  A  ray  of  light  has  glided  into  the  mind 
of  that  pagan,  which  overjoys  him  ;  for,  a  few  mo- 
ments before,  he  was  reading  the  Prophets,  without 
understanding  aught  of  what  they  meant  concern- 
ing the  Messiah.  He  is  seized  with  the  desire  of 
receiving  baptism,  but  Philip  hesitates  for  a  while, 
for  he  has  not  at  heretofore  to  deal  with  a  circum- 
cised Jew,  but  with  a  Gentile.  This  "  If  thou 
believest,  thou  mayest,"  if  authentic,  would  then 
indicate  a  concession  made  for  the  first  time  to  a 


BAPTISM  BEFORE  FAITH.  137 

Gentile,  but  on  condition  of  a  special  assurance  of 
sincerity  and  earnestness.  Had  he  applied  to  be 
circumcised  instead  of  baptized,  a  Jewish  priest 
would  have  enacted  the  same  condition  without  its 
implying  aught  against  the  circumcision  of  infants. 
Finally,  should  any  one,  in  spite  of  all  preceding 
evidence,  persist  in  seeing  here  a  baptism  after 
faith,  he  cannot  certainly  deny  that  what  must  have 
rendered  the  baptism  such  is  a  delay  of  a  very  few 
minutes  only,  caused  by  the  hesitation  of  Philip  ; 
for  just  a  moment  before,  the  eunuch  ignored  all 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  A  baptism 
performed  under  such  circumstances  forms  no  ex- 
ception to  the  rule  which  we  have  laid  down. 

§  56.  The  First  Public  Baptism  of  a  Heathen 
is  that  of  Cornelius ;  here  is  again  some  Hesi- 
tation followed  by  Precipitation. — The  baptism 
of  Cornelius  (Acts  x.)  resembles  very  much  that 
of  the  eunuch.  Philip  had  baptized  the  first  Gen- 
tile. But  this  had  taken  place  in  the  desert,  — 
without  witnesses  and  through  a  special  revelation. 
The  eunuch  had  proceeded  afterwards  to  his  own 
country,  without  presenting  himself  amongst  the 
disciples  at  Jerusalem.  The  fact  was  therefore  still 
unknown  to  them ;  and  besides,  Philip  had  not  the 
preponderating  influence  of  Peter  to  make  them 
accept  a  doubtful  baptism.     It  is  now  the  first  of 


138  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  Apostles  who  will  be  called  to  baptize  Gentiles 
in  a  public  manner,  and  for  the  first  time  to  ac- 
knowledge some  of  them  officially  as  disciples.  But 
how  strong  were  his  prejudices,  and  how  great  his 
fear  of  compromising  the  cause  !  The  whole  chap- 
ter is  explaining  how  he  is  led  gradually  to  baptize 
heathens.  First,  a  special  revelation  of  God  teaches 
him  that  earnest  and  sincere  pagans  are  not  defiled 
as  unclean  animals.  Then  comes  a  new  revelation 
of  the  Spirit,  to  make  him  accept  the  invitation, 
and  follow,  doubting  nothing,  the  three  pagan  mes- 
sengers. For  greater  precaution,  he  requests  a  cer- 
tain number  of  Jewish  brethren  to  accompany  him ; 
he  imparts  to  them  and  to  the  assembled  heathen 
his  reasons  for  venturing  even  to  preach  the  Gospel 
to  Gentiles.  He  speaks  to  these  heathens  of  the 
baptism  which  John  preached,  but  does  not  dare 
commit  himself  in  recommending  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  order  to  obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  which 
he  never  failed  to  do  when  preaching  to  the  Jews. 
He  waits  for  a  new  manifestation  from  above  before 
he  offers  to  baptize  them.  God  then  operates  before 
him  and  before  the  brethren  a  miraculous  demon- 
stration, which  must  overcome  their  reluctance  and 
remove  all  their  conscientious  scruples  in  reference 
to  baptizing  Gentiles.  By  anticipation  and  for  a 
time  he  imparts  to  them  the  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  causing  them  to  speak  with  tongues  and  to 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  139 

magnify  God.  All  the  brethren  must  then  be  con- 
vinced. Peter  feels  that  he  cannot  refuse  them 
baptism  any  longer,  since  the  Spirit  has  already 
forestalled  effects  which  follow  this  ordinance. 
However,  he  yields  to  this  conclusion  only  with 
extreme  caution.  He  first  questions  the  brethren, 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  water  ?  "  (ver.  47),  and  they 
not  objecting,  and  consenting  tacitly  to  share  in  the 
responsibility,  he  grants  to  Gentiles  the  baptism  of 
water,  which  after  this  precedent  will  be  hereafter 
granted  to  them  sooner  and  without  any  hesitation, 
as  being  a  public  act  of  renouncing  paganism  and 
professing  to  seek  in  Christ  the  remission  of  sins. 

It  must  be  granted  that  in  this  baptism  of  Corne- 
lius there  is  an  exception  to  the  universal  rule  of 
the  baptism  of  water  before  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  the  exception  has  its  motives  clear  and  strong, 
and  therefore  only  confirms  the  rule.  For  the  rest, 
let  us  reduce  this  exception  to  its  exact  dimen- 
sions, which  will  prove  very  small.  First,  nothing 
shows  that  every  one  of  these  heathen  had  been 
thoroughly  converted  during  the  few  moments  or 
hours  while  the  address  of  Peter  lasted.  The  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  fell  suddenly  on  all  pres- 
ent (ver.  44)  must  be  considered  as  a  new  miracu- 
lous manifestation  added  to  those  of  the  day  pre- 
vious. It  did  not  imply  a  change  of  heart  and  a 
complete  work  of  regeneration  ;   they  had  still  to 


140  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

seek  and  obtain  the  remission  of  sins,  in  view  of 
which  water-baptism  was  conferred  upon  them  as 
it  had  been  by  the  same  Apostle  on  the  three  thou- 
sand (Acts  ii.  38)  :  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins."  But  accord- 
ing to  the  Baptist  view,  not  one  was  baptized  by  the 
Apostle  unless  he  was  a  believer  and  had  experi- 
enced saving  faith.  This  is  tantamount  to  confer- 
ring upon  Peter  a  most  wonderful  magical  power 
of  saving  souls,  as  it  were  by  an  electrical  shock. 
When  he  begins  to  speak,  he  has  before  him  an 
audience  of  heathen  who  know  as  yet  nothing  about 
the  Gospel ;  a  moment  after,  they  are  all  believers, 
regenerated  and  saved,  yea,  all  and  every  one  of 
them  at  the  same  time.  If  not,  if  there  was  a  single 
exception,  this  baptism  was  not  that  of  believers, 
and  the  Baptist  doctrine  crumbles.  But  even  sup- 
posing the  impossibility  that  this  miraculous  "  fall- 
ing" of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  all  present  be  tanta- 
mount to  a  true  conversion  of  each,  it  must  be 
conceded  then  that  the  exception  to  the  universal 
rule  of  baptism  before  faith  has  consisted  only  in 
the  delay  of  baptism  by  a  few  minutes,  —  delay 
caused  not  by  a  principle,  but  by  the  necessity 
of  exceptional  circumstances,  and  sufficiently  ex- 
plained through  the  scruples  of  Peter  and  other 
Jewish  brethren  present.  As  soon  as  he  is  con- 
vinced  that  he   has   used   unnecessary   delay,  the 


BAPTISM  BEFORE   FAITH.  141 

Apostle  commands  and  hurries  the  baptism  of  all 
his  heathen  listeners  (ver.  47  and  48). 

It  was  not,  however,  without  some  good  grounds 
that  Peter  had  hesitated,  for  the  report  of  his  visit 
to  Cesarea  and  of  a  baptism  conferred  upon  heathen 
caused  a  lively  sensation  in  the  Church  at  Jerusa- 
lem (Acts  xi.  1-18).  He  is  accused  of  having 
violated  the  established  rules.  He  is  compelled  to 
justify  himself  by  stating  in  detail  how  he  was  led 
to  assume  this  responsibility,  and  produces  as  wit- 
nesses of  the  whole  occurrence  the  six  brethren 
that  accompanied  him  (ver.  12).  The  Church  at 
last  officially  indorses  this  baptism  of  Gentiles,  and 
"  holding  their  peace,  glorified  God,  saying,  Then 
hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance 
unto  life."  Repentance  alone  justifies  in  the  eyes 
of  the  Church  this  baptism  of  heathens,  and  places 
it  in  agreement  with  the  established  practice.  A 
miraculous  and  anticipated  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  compelled  in  this  case  that  of  water, 
which  from  legal  prejudice  was  in  danger  of  being 
withheld. 

§  57.  Paul,  Lydia,  the  Jailer,  and  others  are 
baptized  in  great  Haste  upon  the  first  Assent 
given  to  the  Gospel,  and  are  taught  only  after 
being  baptized.  —  The  baptisms  which  now  follow 
in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  cannot  delay  us  long, 


142  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

for  they  all  bear  the  same  character.  They  all  take 
place  before  faith,  or  are  simultaneous  with  it,  but 
never  posterior  to  it.  First  comes  Paul's  baptism. 
(Acts  ix.  19.)  When  Ananias  was  sent  to  him,  he 
was  only  overwhelmed,  distressed  and  praying  for 
mercy ;  he  was  not  converted.  Ananias  is  sent  on 
a  special  mission  by  Jesus,  to  declare  to  him  the 
counsel  of  God,  that  he  might  receive  his  sight 
and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  the  use 
of  his  senses  is  first  restored  to  him,  then  he  rises, 
and  then  before  he  is  allowed  to  eat  anything,  al- 
though fasting  since  three  days,  he  is  first  baptized 
(ver.  18),  and  only  after  baptism  will  he  eat,  recruit 
his  strength,  and  last  of  all  be  taught.  Here,  as 
everywhere,  we  meet  with  this  remarkable  haste  in 
the  performance  of  baptism,  which  is  always  con- 
ferred on  the  very  first  mark  of  an  external  assent 
to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  without  allow- 
ing a  moment  for  consideration  on  the  part  of  either 
the  baptized  or  the  baptizer.  This  extraordinary 
haste  will  have  to  be  carefully  investigated  a  little 
later,  if  we  are  to  understand  the  true  nature  of 
baptism,  for  it  is  probably  the  most  striking  fact 
connected  with  it,  though  the  least  noticed  ;  but  we 
must  be  content  for  the  present  with  its  being  well 
authenticated  for  future  reference. 

Afterwards  comes   the   baptism  of  Lydia.      She 
listens  to  an  address  of  Paul,  and  "  the  Lord  opened 


BAPTISM   BEFORE  FAITH.  143 

her  heart,  that  she  attended  unto  the  things  which 
were  spoken  of  Paul."  (Acts  xvi.  14,  15.)  Thus 
far,  there  is  no  evidence  on  her  part  of  anything 
more  than  interest  and  attention  paid  to  the  things 
spoken  by  Paul ;  but  this  is  quite  sufficient ;  they 
hasten  to  baptize  her,  and  not  only  her,  but  also  all 
her  household,  which  appears  either  to  have  paid  no 
attention,  or  not  even  to  have  listened  at  all.  In 
the  text  the  household  is  intentionally  left  out  as  to 
the  report  of  change  of  heart  and  attention  to  the 
preaching  of  Paul.  Lydia  alone  experiences  this. 
But  her  household  is  not  left  out  in  baptism  ;  will- 
ing or  unwilling,  interested  or  not,  they  are  bap- 
tized with  the  head  of  the  family.  There  is  no  indi- 
cation of  Lydia  having  believed  so  as  to  experience 
a  change  of  heart ;  the  Lord  only  opens  her  heart 
that  she  listens  attentively  to  Paul.  But  this  is 
enough ;  baptism  is  immediately  imparted  without 
delay,  and  before  the  meeting  breaks  up.  The 
haste  is  such,  that  only  after  her  baptism  has  she 
a  chance  of  proffering  to  Paul  the  hospitality  of  her 
house.  Here  again  we  see  baptism  conferred  as 
soon  as  the  people  can  be  made  to  agree  to  receive 
it.  They  are  not  made  to  wait  for  their  baptism, 
or  undergo  a  course  of  preparation  and  teaching. 
No,  it  is  almost  forced  upon  them,  on  the  very  spot 
where  they  listen  for  the  first  time  to  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel.  They  are  baptized  first  and  taught 
afterwards. 


144  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

The  same  precipitancy  is  observed  in  the  baptism 
of  the  jailer  and  of  his  family.  (Acts  xvi.  25-84.) 
Awakened  in  the  middle  of  the  night  by  an  earth- 
quake, they  hear  for  the  first  time  the  Gospel  spoken 
of.  They  feel  moved,  and  at  the  instant,  without 
waiting  for  daylight,  without  preparations,  without 
a  moment  for  reflection,  without  calling  together  a 
meeting  of  the  brethren  of  the  place,  they  are  hur- 
ried to  baptism.  Now-a-days,  we  would  all  tax 
such  a  baptism  with  shocking  impropriety  and  cul- 
pable levity ;  but  it  seems  evident  that  the  Apostles 
must  have  entertained  very  different  notions  from 
ours  upon  the  inmost  nature  of  baptism,  and  its 
peculiar  usefulness  to  the  receiver.  It  seems  as  if 
they  had  thought  it  their  duty  to  take  advantage  of 
the  very  first  indication  of  a  feeling  of  compunction 
in  an  unconverted  listener  for  hastening  to  confer 
upon  him  a  baptism  of  water.  The  version  says 
that  they  were  baptized  "  straightway  " ;  the  origi- 
nal is  stronger,  if  possible,  "  at  the  very  instant." 
True,  it  is  stated  farther  on  (ver.  34)  that  he  re- 
joiced and  believed  ;  but  this  comes  only  after  his 
baptism,  which  must  have  contributed  to  this  final 
happy  result  of  rejoicing  and  believing.  Then  the 
question  would  be  again  to  know  how  he  believed, 
for  if  he  believed  as  did  the  Samaritans  and  Simon 
Magus,  this  belief  did  not  surely  imply  conversion 
and  justifying  faith.     The  same  remark  applies  to 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  145 

the  brief  mention  of  the  baptism  of  some  Corin- 
thians, — "  Many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  be- 
lieved, and  were  baptized."  (Acts  xviii.  8.)  The 
former  baptisms  explain  sufficiently  this  passage 
where  the  details  fail  us. 

§58.  Twelve  Ignorant  Men  baptized  in  haste 
at  the  close  of  a  Conversation.  —  There  remains 
now  but  one  more  baptism  to  examine,  namely, 
that  of  "  certain  disciples  "  whom  Paul  re-baptized. 
(Acts  xix.  1-6.)  Here  again  the  people  are  bap- 
tized in  haste,  and  immediately  at  the  close  of  a 
conversation  with  Paul.  They  were  twelve.  An 
hour  before  their  baptism,  they  still  ignored  the 
Gospel  and  even  the  existence  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  yet  they  were  baptized  all  twelve  together  and 
at  once.  Have  they  all  been  converted  together 
at  the  same  minute  ?  Have  they  all  twelve,  and 
without  a  single  exception,  believed  and  experi- 
enced a  change  of  heart,  and  all  at  the  same 
instant,  through  some  magical  power  in  Paul  ? 
This  absurdity  must  be  admitted,  or  else  it  must 
be  granted  that  these  twelve  were  baptized  without 
regard  to  faith,  and  before  they  had  it.  A  unani- 
mous assent  of  twelve  men  to  what  Paul  said  is 
quite  natural  and  easily  understood,  and  upon  this 
they  are  baptized.     But  in  order  to  find   here  a 

baptism  of  believers,  Paul  has  to  be  endowed  with 
7  j 


146  THE   BAPTISM    OF   WATER. 

the  power  of  changing  men's  hearts  at  pleasure, 

and  thus  to  be  put  in  the  place  of  God.  For  the 

rest,  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost  only  after  the 
baptism  of  water. 

§  59.    A    leading   Object   of  Baptism   was    to 
bring  the  Receiver  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ.  — 

But  this  is  not  all ;  in  this  very  passage  we  have 
an  important  declaration  upon  the  connection  exist- 
ing between  faith  and  water-baptism,  namely,  that 
"  John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on 
Christ  Jesus."  (Acts  xix.  4.)  He  did  not  baptize 
believers,  but  people  who  "  should  believe  on  Christ 
Jesus."  He  preached  first  to  the  people  to  repent, 
then  he  baptized  them  as  a  token  of  repentance, 
and  when  baptized  he  preached  to  them  that  they 
should  believe  on  Christ  Jesus.  So  much  says 
Scripture.  John  therefore  made  of  his  baptism  a 
veritable  preaching  of  saving  faith,  an  ordinance 
through  which  to  obtain  the  grace  of  believing. 
He  baptized  with  water  the  called,  urging  them  to 
become  the  chosen.  But  we  have  already  ascer- 
tained that  the  baptism  of  John  is  emphatically 
the  baptism  of  water,  the  only  baptism  which  the 
Apostles  ever  received  or  conferred.  We  have 
here,  therefore,  a  clear  declaration  of  principle  laid 
down  in  Scripture,  which  perfectly  agrees  with  all 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  147 

the  facts  we  have  examined,  which  is  the  same 
which  we  expressed  in  the  beginning,  and  which 
alone  can  satisfactorily  explain  all  the  baptisms  of 
which  we  have  a  detailed  account.  This  is  the 
baptism  of  water  before  faith,  and  Scripture  knows 
no  other. 

§  60.  Scripture  knows  neither  Delay,  nor 
Preparation,  nor  Examination,  nor  Discipline 
in  reference  to  Baptism. — We  have  passed  under 
review  all  the  cases  of  baptism  detailed  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  nowhere  have  we  found  faith 
placed  as  a  preliminary  condition,  while  we  have 
recognized  everywhere  baptisms  of  the  unconverted. 
Two  baptisms  alone  seemed  for  a  while  to  make  an 
exception  ;  but  they  were  those  of  the  first  two 
Gentiles  baptized,  and  it  has  been  shown  not  only 
that  the  exception  was  insignificant,  but  that  it 
agreed  with  the  rule  and  confirmed  it.  The  fact 
is,  that  there  is  in  the  Gospel  no  condition  what- 
ever attached  to  the  reception  of  baptism.  The 
ordinance  is  as  freely  imparted  as  the  word  of 
preaching  itself ;  it  is  even  part  of  the  preaching 
of  repentance.  Both  the  preaching  and  its  ordi- 
nance are  for  all  who  care  to  listen  and  to  receive. 
Baptism  is  given  to  any  one  who  wishes  for  it,  and 
there  is  not  a  single  instance  of  refusal  or  postpone- 
ment.    People  are  urged  to  receive  it  as  soon  as 


148  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

they  assent  to  the  preaching,  and  great  haste  is 
evinced  in  bringing  them  to  the  ceremony.  No 
discipline,  no  examination,  no  time  of  probation 
to  make  sure  of  faith,  not  even  a  question  asked. 
An  external  assent  to  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  is 
sufficient,  and  the  readiness  to  receive  the  water  of 
baptism  is  considered  as  sufficient  proof  of  assent  to 
the  preaching  just  heard.  The  condition,  if  there 
be  any,  is  entirely  subjective  ;  it  is  the  affair  of  the 
candidate  and  not  of  the  baptizer.  But  these  facts 
can  in  no  way  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of 
Baptists,  nor  even  with  that  of  most  Pedobaptists. 

§  61.  The  Gospel  places  Baptism  always  be- 
fore, and  the  Baptists  always  after,  Faith ;  it  is 
the  most  flagrant  Contradiction  imaginable. — 

We  feel  so  strong  on  the  ground  of  Scriptural  facts 
that  we  can  afford  to  make  generously  a  great  con- 
cession to  Baptists,  and  yet  prove  to  them,  in  an 
invincible  manner,  that  their  whole  practice  is  just 
the  reverse  of  that  of  the  Apostles.  Therefore  let 
us  concede  for  a  while  that  both  the  eunuch  and 
Cornelius  were  baptized  only  after  faith,  and  there 
still  remains  to  us  untouched  the  great  truth,  the 
impregnable  position,  that 

There  is  no  instance  in  the  Bible  of  a  single 
person  being  baptized  later  than  the  very  day 
of  his  conversion. 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  149 

Here  is  the  practice  of  the  Apostles.  Now  for 
that  of  the  Baptists  :  — 

There  is  no  instance  of  the  Baptists  immersing 
A  believer  the  very  day  of  his  conversion,  or  at 

ANY   TIME    SOONER. 

Here  is  a  striking  contrast  between  the  two  prac- 
tices, and  the  one  entirely  gives  the  lie  to  the  other. 
Tax  your  imagination  for  a  more  flagrant  contradic- 
tion of  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  and  you  cannot 
find  it.  Of  course,  Baptists  do  not  profess  to  bap- 
tize a  man  earlier  than  the  day  of  his  conversion, 
since  they  insist  upon  the  baptism  of  believers  only. 
Moreover,  we  have  never  met  with  a  Baptist  who 
had  been  immersed  on  the  very  day  and  hour  of  his 
conversion ;  we  question  if  there  be  any  such,  and 
the  case  must  be  a  very  rare  one  indeed  if  it  exists 
at  all.  Thus  is  a  Baptist  Church,  through  the  bap- 
tism of  each  of  its  members,  a  living  protest  against 
the  practice  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  This 
is  a  sad  thing  to  say,  but  it  is  a  fact  by  far  too  in- 
contestable. Moreover,  who  does  not  know  where 
Baptists  go  in  order  to  recruit  their  ranks  !  Who 
does  not  know  that  it  is  in  the  bosom  of  Evangelical 
churches,  much  more  than  amidst  the  crowds  of  a 
perishing  world,  that  they  strive  for  new  adherents 
to  enlarge  their  numbers !  They  are  Christian 
brethren  those  whom  they  seek  to  convert,  not  to 
the  Gospel,  but  to  Anabaptism,  and  many  receive 


150  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

their  pretended  baptism  twenty  years  or  more  after 
their  conversion.  The  Romish  Mass  is  probably 
not  quite  so  far  removed  from  the  Gospel  as  the 
baptism  of  Baptists. 

§  62.  Dangerous  Semi-Anabaptism  of  Pedo- 
baptists.  Adults  and  Children  must  receive  tbe 
same  Baptism.  —  It  is  but  fair  and  true  to  add, 
also,  that  the  baptism  of  adults,  conferred  by  Pedo- 
baptists  after  faith  only,  and  by  following  the  same 
discipline  used  for  admission  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
is  a  Semi-Anabaptism,  contrary  to  Scripture,  and 
which  receives  its  punishment,  from  the  fact  that 
it  is  everywhere  through  this  dangerous  conces- 
sion that  Baptists  gain  access  to  the  mind  and  con- 
science of  simple-minded  people.  Their  work  is 
half  done  by  Pedobaptists  themselves  ;  it  requires 
only  to  ask  the  people  to  be  logical  and  consistent, 
and  if  they  would  have  but  an  after-faith  baptism 
for  themselves,  not  to  give  another  to  their  chil- 
dren, not  to  violate  their  own  principles  in  baptiz- 
ing those  who  cannot  believe.  How  many  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren,  to  whom  their  inmost  Christian 
feeling  and  practical  common  sense  whisper  that 
Anabaptism  cannot  be  the  truth,  and  who  are, 
however,  incapable  of  forming  any  clear  concep- 
tion on  the  doctrine  of  baptism,  and  lose  them- 
selves in  the  intricate  maze  of  contradictions  which 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  151 

that  Semi-Anabaptisra,  where  they  find  themselves 
placed  without  suspecting  it,  suggests  to  their 
minds.  And  the  champions  of  Pedobaptism  write 
with  an  admirable  simplicity :  "  We  are  perfectly 
agreed  with  Baptists  in  reference  to  the  baptism 
of  adults  ;  we  differ  only  in  reference  to  infants  ; 
we  practise,  in  common  with  Baptists,  only  the  be- 
liever's baptism  for  adults,  and  base  ourselves  for 
this  on  the  same  texts  with  them ;  why,  then,  bring 
these  texts  against  infant  baptism  ?  "  This  recalls 
to  our  mind  the  story  of  that  walled  city  which  was 
preparing  against  the  invasion  of  the  French.  The 
defence  of  one  of  its  three  gates  had  been  neglected, 
because  situated  on  the  opposite  side  to  that  where 
the  enemy  was  expected  to  arrive.  But  the  assail- 
ants appearing  before  that  very  gate,  the  officer  in 
command  exclaimed  in  vain  :  "  Gentlemen,  you  are 
not  expected  at  this  gate ;  please  to  pass  on  to  the 
other  gates."  They  went  in  just  the  same  through 
the  defenceless  gate,  laughing  at  the  incredible  sim- 
plicity of  the  inhabitants  and  their  defenders,  and 
unconcerned  for  the  great  preparations  made  at  the 
other  gates. 

Baptism  always  before  faith  both  for  adults 
and  for  infants  :  such  should  be  the  device  of 
Pedobaptists.  With  it,  they  will  easily  resist  the 
onset  of  Anabaptism  ;  without  it,  the  issue  of  the 
conflict  will  at  best  remain  doubtful,  —  the  enemy 


152  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

will  enter  the  place  through  the  gate  left  open,  and 
will  recruit  their  ranks  with  prisoners  taken  from 
the  Evangelical  churches.  It  is  but  just  to  observe 
here,  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  the 
several  Pedobaptist  churches  as  to  the  severity  of 
the  admission  of  adults  to  baptism,  and  this  gen- 
erally according  as  their  discipline  for  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  more  or  less  rigorous.  The  Indepen- 
dents, otherwise  called  the  Congregationalists,  are 
the  most  strict  of  any ;  Presbyterians  and  Episco- 
palians are  easier,  and  the  practice  of  some  of  them 
in  reference  to  adult  baptism  comes  very  near  our 
own  point  of  view.  But  experience  shows  that  the 
more  strict  a  church  is  as  to  adult  baptism,  the 
more  it  is  exposed  to  inroads  from  Baptist  propa- 
gandism.  Let  no  inference,  however,  be  drawn 
from  this  in  behalf  of  laxity  of  discipline  in  the 
Lord's  Supper  ;  for  we  only  attack  the  transfer  of 
the  discipline  of  the  one  sacrament  to  the  other 
as  unjustifiable  and  mischievous,  however  proper 
and  Scriptural  that  discipline  may  be  in  its  right 
place. 

Baptism  before  faith  once  well  established  through 
the  facts  and  declarations  of  Scripture,  all  opposi- 
tion to  infant  baptism  falls  of  itself,  since  that  oppo- 
sition rests  altogether  upon  the  anti-Scriptural  idea 
that  baptism  must  be  given  exclusively  to  believers. 
Although  baptism  before  faith  is  alone  justified  in 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  153 

principle,  it  will  happen,  through  accident  or  neg- 
lect or  error,  that  it  is  omitted  at  the  proper  time, 
or  delayed,  and  then  an  exception  will  become  ne- 
cessary, not  to  the  principle,  but  to  its  application ; 
and  a  person  placed  in  such  exceptional  circum- 
stances will  do  well  to  fulfil  "  all  righteousness " 
and  to  receive  a  baptism  of  water  even  after  faith. 
Much  as  such  delay  is  to  be  regretted,  it  will  then 
be  proper  to  decide,  as  in  former  times  for  circum- 
cision, and  now-a-days  for  the  admission  to  church- 
membership  and  participation  in  the  Holy  Supper, 
that  it  is  better  late  than  never. 

§  63.    Immersion     implies     Baptism     before 

Faith.  —  Our  conclusions  on  the  relative  order  of 
baptism  to  faith  are  already  drawn,  and,  as  we  be- 
lieve, well  supported  by  stanch  Gospel  facts.  But 
we  will  not  take  leave  of  the  subject  without  some 
additional  strictures. 

The  Baptists  unconsciously  admit  by  implication 
our  principle,  and  corroborate  it  in  two  different 
ways.  First,  by  their  immersion  itself.  They  pro- 
fess to  represent  through  it  a  burial  with  Christ. 
Let  us  take  them  at  their  word.  Burial  with  Christ 
would  evidently  be  damnation,  if  not  followed  by 
resurrection  with  Christ.  Sin  causes  death,  and 
baptism  buries,  but  faith  does  neither.  The  part 
of  faith  is  to  raise  up,  and  its  action  does  not  pre- 

7* 


154  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

cede,  but  follows  baptism.  This  argument  is  not 
ours ;  it  is  that  of  St.  Paul,  if  we  are  to  under- 
stand with  Baptists,  in  its  literal  meaning,  their 
following  favorite  passage  :  "  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith."  (Col.  ii.  12.)  Here  is  cer- 
tainly baptism-burial  put  before  faith.  But  Bap- 
tists have  changed  all  this.  If  we  are  to  credit 
them,  one  must  first  be  raised  up  by  faith  to  be 
buried  afterwards  in  baptism.  It  is  a  complete 
inversion  of  the  Gospel. 

§  64.  Baptists  themselves  confer  Baptism  be- 
fore Faith  and  acknowledge  officially  and  pub- 
licly its  Validity.  —  Finally,  whatever  Baptists  may 
assert  as  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  faith  to  render 
a  baptism  valid,  they  are  the  very  first  to  deny  it  in 
practice.  You  say  that  infant  baptism  is  not  valid, 
that  it  is  not  even  a  baptism  at  all,  because  it  has 
been  imparted  without  faith,  and  you  re-baptize 
those  who  have  received  it,  because  you  admit  as 
valid  only  the  believer's  baptism.  But  you  confer 
yourselves  thousands  of  baptisms,  which,  in  your 
own  point  of  view,  are  no  better  than  those  of 
infants,  —  indeed,  are  worth  much  less.  Are  you 
able  to  read  the  heart,  and  are  you  perfectly  cer- 
tain that  a  man  has  a  genuine  faith,  and  that  he 
is   already  regenerated,  when  you  immerse  him  ? 


BAPTISM   BEFORE   FAITH.  155 

Does  it  never  happen  that  those  whom  you  have 
baptized  show  afterwards  through  their  works  that 
they  had  not  yet  received  faith  at  the  time  of  their 
baptism  ?  If  this  does  not  happen  to  you,  you  are 
more  clear-sighted  than  the  Apostles,  who  baptized 
even  a  Simon  Magus ;  more  discerning  than  Jesus 
Christ,  who  sanctioned  the  baptism  of  multitudes, 
amongst  whom  very  few  persevered.  And  when  it 
so  happens  to  you  that  you  have  made  too  much 
haste  with  your  ordinance,  and  you  find  it  out, 
what  do  you  think  then  of  your  baptism  ?  Is  it 
valid,  this  baptism  imparted  without  faith,  granted 
to  illusion,  if  not  even  to  hypocrisy  ?  And  when 
these  people  whom  you  have  baptized  too  soon  be- 
come later  really  converted,  why  do  you  not  re- 
baptize  them  ?  Why  do  you  concede  to  them,  in 
contradiction  with  your  own  principles,  a  baptism 
before  faith,  which  you  deny  to  brethren  more 
faithful  ?  Do  you  really  imagine  that  this  baptism 
which  you  so  often  confer  upon  the  unconverted 
and  upon  the  hypocrites  is  worth  more  than  the 
baptism  of  infants  ?  As  to  ourselves,  we  place  it 
infinitely  below.  But  as  for  you,  you  declare  null 
and  void  the  baptism  of  innocence,  and  valid  that 
of  unbelief  or  hypocrisy !  You  witness,  therefore, 
against  yourselves  that  you  admit  as  genuine  and 
valid,  baptism  before  faith  under  its  worst  aspect. 
The  amazing  contradictions  in  which  you  are  com- 


156  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

pelled  to  involve  yourselves,  indicate  sufficiently 
that  your  doctrine  is  not  of  God,  that  it  is  a 
modern  invention,  which  does  not  rise  above  the 
level  of  all  the  human  traditions  of  the  Church 
of  Rome. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE  COMMISSION  GIVEN  TO   THE   APOSTLES  BY  JESUS 
CHRIST. 

§  65.  There  is  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament hut  a  single  and  unique  Command  to 
Baptize.  —  All  the  accounts  of  baptism  supplied 
by  the  New  Testament  have  now  been  passed  in 
review,  and  searched  to  ascertain  in  every  separate 
instance  which  of  the  two,  baptism  or  faith,  pre- 
cedes the  other.  After  having  exhausted  this  source 
of  information,  we  have  been  compelled  to  acknowl- 
edge that  baptism  always  precedes  regenerating 
faith,  and  is  itself  preceded  only  by  that  external 
assent  indispensable  in  order  that  a  person  should 
agree  to  pass  through  the  ceremony.  This  assent 
is  at  any  rate  a  belief,  and  the  word  believe  can  be 
used  to  express  it,  as  indeed  Scripture  sometimes 
does ;  but  it  is  far  from  being  faith  in  the  absolute 
sense,  faith  that  saves  and  regenerates.  We  have 
ascertained,  moreover,  that  baptism  followed  imme- 
diately and  at  the  very  instant  the  first  indication 


158  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

of  external  assent,  that  haste  was  exhibited  in  con- 
ferring it  upon  any  one  who  agreed  to  receive  it, 
and  that  there  is  not  a  single  instance  of  a  person 
listening  with  joy  or  attention  to  the  preaching  of 
the  word,  whose  baptism  had  been  postponed  to  the 
morrow.  Having  exhausted  the  investigation  of 
that  class  of  facts,  our  next  move  now  should  be  to 
seek  if  there  are  not,  in  reference  to  baptism,  some 
positive  commands  of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles, 
which  might  further  enlighten  us  upon  the  nature 
of  this  ordinance  and  its  relation  to  faith.  After 
careful  search,  we  can  find  in  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment but  one  sole  command  to  baptize,  and  that  is 
given  to  the  eleven  disciples  by  the  Lord  himself, 
after  his  resurrection.     It  is  the  following  :  — 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.) 

This  command,  being  the  single  one  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  which  refers  to  baptizing,  deserves 
particular  attention.  We  are  bound  to  investigate 
with  the  greatest  concern  all  that  it  implies,  as  well 
as  to  ascertain  what  it  does  not  imply. 

§  66.  The  Command  having  heen  given  to  the 
Eleven  Apostles  alone,  and  not  transferred  by 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  159 

them  to  others,  points  to  the  Old  Testament  for 
Scriptural  Authority  to  perform  the  Ordinance. 

—  1st.  The  injunction  to  baptize  is  given  to  the 
eleven  alone,  and  nowhere  do  we  see  it  transferred 
by  them.  There  is  no  command  whatever  of  the 
Apostles,  either  expressed  or  even  implied,  author- 
izing us  to  baptize.  Moreover,  all  the  baptisms  are 
performed  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  with  only  two 
exceptions,  namely,  Philip  the  Evangelist  and  Ana- 
nias the  prophet,  who  have  received  a  special  mis- 
sion, have  the  gift  of  miracles,  and  are  responsible 
to  the  Apostles.  It  must  be  confessed  that  baptism 
has  somewhat  the  appearance  of  an  apostolical  pre- 
rogative, which  we  have  arrogated  to  ourselves 
without  sufficient  authority ;  and  that  when  we  pro- 
test against  the  attempt  of  the  priest  to  confer  the 
Holy  Ghost,  after  baptism,  through  the  laying  on  of 
hands,  we  might,  with  some  show  of  truth,  be  re- 
proached that  we  do  much  the  same,  and  that  our 
baptism  has  for  its  support  neither  more  authority 
nor  more  efficacy  than  this  vain  imposition  of  hands. 
Ecclesiastical  history  will  not  avail  to  help  us  out  of 
this  difficulty,  for  if  it  shows  that  baptism  was  very 
early  practised  in  the  Church,  it  shows  also  that  the 
laying  on  of  hands  always  followed  baptism,  and 
was  in  use  just  as  early.  Thus,  in  a  word,  there  is 
but  one  command  to  baptize,  the  command  is  given 
to  the  eleven  alone,  and  not  to  us,  and  the  eleven 


160  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

have  not  "  delivered  "  it  to  us,  as  they  have  that 
for  the  Holy  Supper.  (1  Cor.  xi.  23.)  The  Qua- 
kers and  Socinus  are  therefore  perfectly  right  in 
saying  that  nothing  in  the  New  Testament  enjoins 
upon  us  the  practice  of  baptism.  Only  let  us  be- 
ware of  concluding  with  them  that  baptism  was 
an  ordinance  limited  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
and  extinct  with  them.  No,  for  it  existed  before 
the  Apostles,  before  John  the  Baptist,  and  they  only 
modified  a  religious  practice  enjoined  already  by 
Moses.  But,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  only  by  adopt- 
ing the  Old  Testament  as  a  foundation,  and  con- 
necting with  it  the  practice  of  baptism,  that  we 
obtain  sufficient  right  to  perpetuate  it.  A  resort  to 
the  Old  Testament  must,  of  course,  exceedingly  dis- 
please Baptists ;  but  if  they  deny  it  to  us,  we  shall 
in  turn  deny  to  them  the  right  of  baptizing  in  any 
way  at  all,  baptism  becoming  then  a  practice  with- 
out authority,  a  usurpation  upon  the  Apostles, 
similar  to  the  exorcism  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Churches.  "We  say  no  more  at  present,  postponing 
to  a  later  stage  the  study  of  the  relation  of  baptism 
to  the  Old  Covenant. 

§  67.  The  Commission  refers  also  to  the  Old 
Testament  for  the  External  Mode  of  Baptism 
and  its  Symbolical  Meaning;.  —  2d.  We  must  re- 
mark in  the  second  place  that  the  command  of  the 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  161 

Lord  fails  entirely  to  appoint  the  mode  of  baptism, 
or  even  to  hint  at  it.  This  sole  order  to  baptize, 
does  not  state  whether  baptism  should  be  performed 
by  aspersion  or  immersion,  nor  whether  there  should 
be  one  application  of  water,  or,  according  to  the 
Fathers,  three,  to  correspond  to  the  three  persons  of 
the  Trinity  in  the  triple  name  of  which  the  baptism 
is  to  be  conferred.  In  the  command  of  the  Lord, 
the  form  of  baptism  is  left  out,  as  already  known 
and  prescribed,  since  the  disciples  had  already  prac- 
tised it  after  John,  and  in  the  same  manner.  But 
John  the  Baptist,  in  his  turn,  takes  also  for  granted 
that « the  form  of  baptism  is  already  known  and 
ordered  before  him,  and  teaches  nothing  whatever 
in  this  respect.  The  command  of  the  Lord,  there- 
fore, forces  us  back  to  the  Old  Testament  for  infor- 
mation on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

3d.  As  to  the  religious  and  symbolic  import  of 
baptism,  the  Lord  commands  nothing  and  explains 
nothing.  He  supposes  it  already  known  and  under- 
stood, and  John  the  Baptist  does  the  same.  He 
only  commands  his  disciples  to  continue  the  prac- 
tice of  a  ceremony  already  established,  and  to  ap- 
ply it  to  the  evangelization  of  the  heathen.  For 
the  original  religious  meaning  of  the  ceremony, 
Jesus  Christ  forces  us  back  again  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, without  the  light  of  which,  nothing  but  mere 
hypothesis  can  be  made  on  the  nature  of  baptism, 


162  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

and  all  baptismal  theories  must  rest  more  or  less  on 
fancy. 

§  68.  The  Command  is  not  general ;  refers 
only  to  the  Baptism  of  Heathen,  and  not  to 
that  of  the  People  of  God.  —  4th.  The  command 
to  baptize  applies  exclusively  to  "  the  nations." 
From  this  it  is  generally  inferred  that  there  is 
here  a  command  to  baptize  all  mankind.  But  it 
is  by  no  means  the  case,  although  the  version  is 
liable  to  lead  one  into  this  error.  The  word  in 
the  original  is  eOvr),  the  Gentiles,  —  the  heathen  in 
opposition  to  the  Jews.  There  is  not  in  the  New 
Testament  a  word  the  meaning  of  which  is  better 
ascertained  and  so  much  beyond  discussion.  It  is 
employed  over  a  hundred  times,  and  this  is  the 
very  word  used  exclusively  by  Paul  in  speaking 
of  the  Gentiles.  The  expression  strictly  excludes 
the  Jews.  Thus  it  is  said  :  "  The  Apostles  and 
brethren  that  were  in  Judaea  heard  that  the  Gen- 
tiles (nations)  had  also  received  the  word  of  God." 
(Acts  xi.  1.)  Paul  said  unto  the  Jews :  "  We  turn 
from  you  to  the  Gentiles."  (Acts  xiii.  46).  "  He 
hath  called  us,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of 
the  Gentiles.''''  (Rom.  ix.  24.)  The  command  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  baptize  is  therefore  not  a  general 
one,  applying  to  mankind,  but  a  special  one,  apply- 
ing to  a  certain  portion  of  mankind  only,  —  to  a 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  163 

nationality  still  more  distinct  from  that  of  the  Jews 
than  Chinese  are  from  Frenchmen.  There  was  no 
need  of  command  or  even  authorization  on  the  part 
of  the  Lord  to  baptize  Jews,  because  the  law  had 
already  given  the  authority ;  but  one  was  needed 
for  the  Gentiles. 

5th.  The  command  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  formal 
revocation  of  a  previous  injunction  given  to  the 
disciples  at  the  time  of  their  first  mission.  He 
had  ordered  them,  saying :  "  Go  not  into  the  way 
of  the  Gentiles."  Now,  on  the  contrary,  all  being 
accomplished,  he  orders  them,  saying :  "  Go  ye  and 
teach  all  the  Gentiles,  baptizing  them  and  teaching 
them." 

§  69.  The  Command  consists  in  making  Dis- 
ciples of  the  Heathen,  and  in  baptizing  them 
previous  to  teaching-  them.  —  6th.  The  injunc- 
tion towards  the  nations  is  literally  to  make  them 
disciples :  "  Go  and  make  disciples  all  nations " 
(fiadyrevcraTe).  All  critics  and  all  new  versions 
are  agreed  that  this  is  the  only  correct  translation. 
All  the  remainder  of  the  passage  is  but  explica- 
tive of  this,  —  make  disciples,  —  and  the  order  does 
not  bear  directly  on  baptism,  which  is  mentioned 
here  only  as  a  means,  and  not  as  an  end.  The 
command  is,  "  Go  and  make  disciples  all  nations." 
But  how  is  it  to  be  executed  ?     1st.  In  baptizing 


164  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

them  ;  2d.  In  teaching  them.  The  command,  of 
course,  to  be  obeyed,  must  be  executed  by  the  pre- 
scribed means ;  but  after  all  the  fact  remains,  that 
it  does  not  refer  directly  to  baptism  itself,  which  is 
mentioned  here,  not  as  the  direct  object  of  the  com- 
mand, but,  what  is  infinitely  less,  as  a  prescribed 
means  to  reach  a  certain  end,  namely,  that  of  mak- 
ing disciples. 

7th.  There  is  a  succession  in  the  two  means  pre- 
scribed, and  what  goes  first  is  baptism  and  after- 
wards only  teaching.  There  is  nothing  placed  be- 
fore baptism,  unless  it  be  the  assent  of  the  subject 
to  receive  it,  which,  in  the  commission  of  Jesus,  is 
merely  implied  and  not  expressed,  because  it  is  a 
matter  of  course.  They  then  flatly  contradict  Jesus 
Christ,  who  put  before  baptism  either  teaching,  or 
regenerating  faith,  or  any  course  of  catechization. 
The  Lord  wishes  that  the  Gentiles,  in  order  to  enter 
his  kingdom,  should  commence  at  the  very  first  by 
a  ceremony  of  initiation,  by  the  purifying  water  of 
baptism  given  at  the  very  moment  that  they  consent 
to  receive  it,  and  that  the  teaching  should  proceed 
afterwards.  There  are  some  ordinances  of  the  law 
which  he  will  not  destroy,  but  confirm  and  enhance 
in  his  new  kingdom,  and  amongst  these  is  the  water- 
baptism  unto  the  purification  of  the  defiled.  His 
Apostles  are  Jews  ;  to  them  the  heathen  are  defiled. 
They  never  could  or  would  initiate  them  into  the 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  165 

mysteries  of  the  kingdom  and  to  the  promises  of 
Israel,  as  long  as  they  remain  in  their  state  of 
impurity.  And  therefore  their  Master  commands 
them,  Go  and  first  purify  through  baptism  these 
defiled  heathen,  and  then  teach  them  all  I  have 
taught  you.  Is  it  not,  then,  disobeying  the  com- 
mand of  Christ  to  insist  that  teaching,  conversion, 
and  faith  shall  precede  baptism  ?  Is  it  not,  in  fact, 
a  complete  perversion  of  the  command  ?  Jesus  thus 
enjoins,  in  a  very  clear  and  very  positive  manner, 
baptism  before  faith  ;  and  his  Apostles  have  strictly 
obeyed  the  injunction,  as  we  have  recognized  when 
we  passed  under  review  all  the  baptisms  which  they 
have  conferred. 

§  70.  Every  Brother  is  a  Disciple,  but  every 
Disciple  is  not  a  Brother.  —  8th.  The  name  of 
disciple  is  not  synonymous  with  that  of  brother 
or  saint,  but  indicates  an  inferior  religious  degree. 
Hence  follows  that  in  Scriptural  language  each 
brother  is  certainly  a  disciple,  but  each  disciple  is 
not  a  brother.  This  is  already  indicated  by  the 
very  meaning  of  the  word  disciple,  both  in  the 
original  and  in  the  version.  A  disciple  is  a  pupil 
who  learns  what  his  Master  teaches  him.  The  dis- 
ciples of  the  Gospel  are  at  the  school  of  Christ, 
taught  either  directly  by  himself  or  by  those  to 
whom   he   has    intrusted    the    discipline    and    the 


166  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

teaching  of  the  Gospel.  A  disciple  may  be  con- 
verted or  not,  but  a  brother  is  always  supposed  to 
be.  These  crowds,  which  we  have  seen  listening 
with  pleasure  to  the  Word,  and  being  baptized,  al- 
though in  not  one  out  of  ten  was  the  seed  to  spring 
up  and  bear  fruit  unto  life  eternal,  —  these  crowds, 
say  we,  were  composed  of  disciples,  for  they  were 
baptized  and  taught,  and  this,  says  Jesus  Christ, 
constitutes  the  disciple.  "  Make  the  nations  dis- 
ciples, baptizing  them  and  teaching  them."  The 
disciple  has  given  to  the  Gospel  an  external  and 
formal  assent  through  his  baptism,  and  if  he  has 
not  yet  the  faith  to  be  saved,  he  is  at  least  in  a 
state  of  preparation  for  it,  and  on  the  only  way 
which  may  lead  him,  through  perseverance,  to  the 
new  birth. 

The  twelve  Apostles  were  called  disciples  so  long 
as  they  had  not  faith  and  remained  unbelievers, 
like  Thomas  (John  xx.  29) ;  unconverted,  like  Pe- 
ter (Luke  xxii.  32).  They  were  just  beginning 
to  believe  when  Jesus  was  about  to  die  (John  xvi. 
31).  Only  after  the  resurrection  of  their  Master, 
only  after  their  faith  has  been  tried  and  brought 
out,  do  they  exchange  the  name  of  disciples  for 
that  of  apostles,  brethren,  or  saints,  which  is  never 
ascribed  to  them  before.  "  Jesus  Christ  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John."  (John  iv..  1.)  But. 
John  baptized  them  by  crowds  ;   were  such  disci- 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  167 

pies  brethren  ?  Far  from  it }  they  belonged  to  the 
called,  almost  the  totality  of  whom  remained  mi- 
believing,  and  ultimately  turned  their  backs  upon 
the  Gospel.  The  commission  which  Jesus  gave  to 
the  eleven  was  simply  the  command  to  do  amongst 
the  heathen  nations  what  they  had  done  hitherto 
exclusively  amongst  the  Jews ;  namely,  first  to  bap- 
tize all  the  called  that  could  be  made  to  listen  to 
their  appeal,  and  to  teach  .them  afterwards.  "We 
are  told  (John  vi.  6G)  that  several  disciples  went 
back  and  withdrew  from  the  Lord.  Not  only  were 
these  disciples  not  converted,  but  they  were  even 
rapidly  losing  the  weak  and  temporary  interest  they 
had  taken  in  the  doctrines  of  the  kingdom.  They 
belonged,  however,  to  the  class  of  the  baptized  ;  if 
they  withdrew,  they  still  retained  this  external  priv- 
ilege, and  when  they  returned  to  Jesus  they  were 
not  re-baptized,  which  would  have  been  unavoid- 
able were  faith  and  conversion  indispensable  to  the 
validity  of  baptism.  But  as  not  only  baptism,  but 
also  subsequent  teaching,  constituted  a  disciple,  the 
name  was  not  applied  to  those  who,  after  their 
baptism,  did  not  undergo  teaching  and  withdrew. 
The  disciples  were  all  the  baptized  who  persevered 
in  listening  to  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
his  Apostles. 

"When  the  disciples  had  become  a  great  multitude, 
when  "  the  Apostles  had  taught  much  people,"  then 


168  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

was  the  name  of  Christian  applied  for  the  first  time, 
at  Antioch,  to  the  increasing  numbers  of  the  called 
who  attended  the  meetings.  (Acts  xi.  26.)  The 
name  of  Christian  was  not  therefore  synonymous 
with  brother  and  saint,  but  it  was  the  name  given 
to  all  that  great  people  which  attended  the  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel.  Then,  a  great  number  of  un- 
converted were  Christian.  One  was  generally  a 
Christian  before  becoming  a  brother.  There  is  no 
sure  evidence  of  the  disciples  being  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  they  were  to  Agapes.  "  The 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread."  (Acts 
xx.  7.)  The  best  manuscripts,  however,  omit  here 
the  word  disciple.  The  name  was  extended  even  to 
people  who  ignored  that  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost, 
but  who,  however,  notwithstanding  their  deep  ig- 
norance, professed  some  adherence  to  Christianity, 
(xix.  1,  2.)  Finally,  Paul  just  after  his  conversion 
is  ranked  amongst  the  disciples,  and  until  he  has 
undergone  trial  for  a  certain  time,  he  is  not  num- 
bered with  the  brethren.  (Acts  ix.  19,  26,  30.) 
At  first  they  would  not  believe  he  was  even  a  dis- 
ciple. The  Apostles  and  the  brethren  in  Jerusalem 
are  alone  consulted  in  church  matters,  and  not  the 
disciples,  (xi.  1.)  But  when  there  is  question  of 
collecting  at  Antioch  for  the  brethren  in  Jerusalem, 
the  brethren  are  not  alone  called  for  a  contribution, 
but  all  the   disciples,    as    including   the   brethren 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  169 

(xi.  29),  which  is  quite  natural.  However,  in  the 
same  way  as  he  only  is  a  true  Jew  who  is  such  in 
spirit  and  in  truth,  thus  also  the  true  disciple,  the 
true  Christian,  is  only  he  who  arrives  at  regenerat- 
ing faith.  In  this  sense  could  Jesus  say  to  his  dis- 
ciples :  "  If  ye  continue  in  my  word,  then  are  ye 
my  disciples  indeed.  Bear  much  fruit,  so  shall  ye 
be  my  disciples."  (John  viii.  31 ;  xv.  8.)  They 
were  already  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ  when 
he  urges  them  to  become  truly  his  disciples. 

^  71.    The  Baptists  suppress  the  Disciples. — 

The  difference  which  was  made  then  between  dis- 
ciples and  brethren  is  still  carried  out  this  day  in 
all  disciplined  churches,  for  there  are  the  members 
of  the  congregation  distinct  from  those  of  the 
church.  In  all  such  churches,  the  congregation, 
that  is  to  say  the  called,  are  taught  indeed,  but  in 
Pedobaptist  churches  alone  have  they  been  first  bap- 
tized to  be  taught  according  to  the  commission  of 
the  Lord  to  his  Apostles.  It  follows  that,  strictly 
speaking,  the  regular  congregation  must  be  com- 
posed of  disciples,  which  is  the  case  in  a  Presby- 
terian church  for  instance,  but  not  at  all  in  a  Bap- 
tist one.  Out  of  three  classes  of  men,  which  the 
Gospel  recognizes  everywhere,  —  the  men  of  the 
world,  the  called,  and  the  chosen,  or,  in  reference  to 
the  church,  the  world,  the  disciples,  and  the  breth- 


170  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ren,  —  the  Baptists  have  entirely  suppressed  one, 
namely,  the  intermediate  class,  that  true  nursery  of 
the  Church.  There  is  for  them  but  the  world  and 
the  brethren  ;  besides  an  immersed  church-mem- 
bership, nothing  but  a  class  of  unbaptized  hearers, 
which  includes  on  the  same  level  both  the  heathen 
and  the  children  of  believers.  And  an  arbitrary 
suppression  leading  easily  to  another,  all  the  Pedo- 
baptist  brethren  are  classed  with  the  world,  and  de- 
barred from  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  privileges 
of  the  Church.  Virtually  it  comes  to  this,  that 
there  are  no  genuine  brethren  but  Baptists,  and 
that  all  the  other  churches  are  just  the  world. 

§  72.  One  can  believe  and  be  baptized  wish 
Water  without  being  saved.  —  9th.  In  the  par- 
allel passage  of  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  the  Lord  issues 
his  commission  without  making  baptism  the  subject 
of  any  command.  The  commission  given  to  the 
Apostles  bears  exclusively  on  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,"  —  which  confirms 
completely  that  baptism  is  not  the  end  of  the 
commission,  but  only  one  of  the  means  to  accom- 
plish it.  We  have  ascertained  also  in  our  first 
chapter  that  the  words  which  follow,  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  cannot  be 
understood  of  any  baptism  unless  that  of  the  Holy 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  171 

Ghost,  for  this  alone  is  essential  to  be  saved.  Let 
us  add  here,  that  to  insist  on  applying  these  words 
to  the  baptism  of  water  would  be  to  force  a  positive 
falsehood  upon  Jesus  Christ.  For  Scripture  de- 
clares, and  in  the  very  same  words  of  the  Lord,  that 
Simon  Magus  "  believed  and  was  baptized,"  and 
yet  he  was  not  saved.  "  Thy  money  perish  with 
thee  !  "  said  Peter  to  him.  (Acts  viii.  13,  20.) 
Therefore,  in  Scriptural  language,  to  believe  and  be 
baptized  with  water  does  not  imply  saving  faith ; 
but  to  believe  and  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  to  be  saved.  Let  this  distinction  be  well  remem- 
bered when  the  account  of  the  eunuch's  baptism  is 
read. 

§  73.  A  Nation  is  not  a  Nation  without  the 
Children,  and  the  Baptism  of  Adults  is  not  en- 
joined in  any  way  more  than  that  of  Infants. 

—  10th.  In  order  to  complete  our  investigation  of 
the  sole  baptismal  command  of  the  Lord,  we  must 
furthermore  put  the  question,  Does  it  imply  or  not 
infant  baptism  ?  This  question  introduces  us  rather 
prematurely  to  a  new  point ;  but  while  investigating 
the  commission  of  the  Lord,  we  must  completely 
sift  all  that  is  implied  in  it.  If  the  commission  does 
not  go  into  many  particulars,  it  has  at  least  the 
widest  range  ever  contended  for  as  to  the  subjects 
of  baptism.     Nations  are  very  certainly  composed 


172  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

of  both  adults  and  children,  and  the  Lord  orders  to 
baptize  nations.  The  commission,  therefore,  leaves 
to  infant  baptism  the  widest  margin  that  it  is  possible 
to  desire  or  even  to  imagine.  Infant  baptism  is 
implied  in  the  command  just  and  exactly  as  much 
as  adult  baptism.  These  two  baptisms,  which  are 
evidently  but  one  in  the  mind  of  Christ,  must  here 
stand  or  fall  together.  If  one  is  denied,  so  must 
the  other  be.  Unless  some  posterior  counter-order 
is  found  elsewhere  in  Scripture,  some  restraining 
declaration  tantamount  to  a  positive  order  of  God, 
we  are  bound  to  baptize  children  if  we  are  not  to 
disobey  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  it  is 
well  known  that  no  such  exceptional  injunction  is 
found  in  Scripture.  What  sacrilegious  hand,  then, 
attempts  to  take  away  something  from  the  words 
of  the  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  when  he  has 
said,  "  Baptize  all  nations,"  presumes  to  rewrite 
the  word  of  God,  and  make  Jesus  Christ  say  :  "  Do 
not  baptize  all  nations !  Baptize  but  a  part  of 
them !  Select  the  adults  for  baptism  !  Leave  out 
the  young  rising  nation  !  Do  not  baptize  them  !  " 
This  sacrilegious  hand  is  Baptist,  Socinian,  Mormon, 
but  it  is  above  all  things  essentially  Rationalist. 

§  74.  The  Baptism  of  Women  is  merely  im- 
plied, but  not  expressly  commanded.  —  Just  as, 
in  olden  times,  the  Pharisees  were  asking  as  proof 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  173 

a  miracle  from  heaven,  which  was  never  granted  to 
them,  just  so,  now-a-days,  the  Baptists,  not  satisfied 
with  the  amplitude  of  the  command  of  the  Lord, 
insist  on  the  urgency  of  some  special  order  in  refer- 
ence to  that  portion  of  the  command  which  does  not 
suit  them,  —  namely,  the  baptism  of  infants.  But 
the  Holy  Ghost,  silent  before  such  an  unbelieving 
exaction,  refuses  to  give  the  special  order  either  to 
baptize  or  not  to  baptize  infants.  The  priests  of 
Rome  also,  not  content  with  the  amplitude  of  the 
command,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  it ! "  have  long  asked 
for  a  special  order  to  give  the  cup  to  laymen,  and 
the  Word  has  not  met  that  exaction.  In  both  cases, 
the  Holy  Ghost  says  to  us,  through  his  very  silence, 
The  command  of  the  Lord  is  sufficient.  The  com- 
mission of  Jesus  Christ  does  not  exclude  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  any  more  than  it  does  that  of 
women ;  rather  less ;  for,  indeed,  a  close  adherence 
to  the  letter  might  exclude  women  from  baptism. 
In  the  original,  the  words  "  baptizing  them "  refer 
strictly  but  to  the  male  sex,  avrovs,  and  not  to 
the  nations.  Had  it  not  been  for  two  accounts 
of  women  baptized  in  the  Acts,  our  Baptist  sects 
would  have  felt  bound,  for  want  of  a  special  order 
to  the  contrary,  to  immerse  only  adult  males,  a 
practice  which  would  at  least  have  in  its  favor  the 
advantage  of  decency. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  order  of  the 


174  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

Lord  refers  to  the  admission  of  the  heathen  into 
the  same  covenant  with  the  Jews ;  that  the  eleven 
Apostles,  Jews  themselves,  and  imbued  with  na- 
tional exclusiveness,  would  never  have  thought  of 
initiating  the  Gentiles  into  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
without  circumcising  also  all  the  males  of  the  fam- 
ily ;  and  that  the  Lord,  in  authorizing  admission 
through  baptism  alone,  and  without  circumcision, 
had  specially  in  view  the  males,  both  adults  and 
infants.  Had  he,  moreover,  intended  to  exclude 
infants,  a  very  formal  restriction  would  have  been 
indispensable,  the  idea  of  initiating  the  adults  of 
the  family  without  the  children  being  of  course 
something  entirely  new  to  the  Israelites.  The  Lord 
has  really  not  ordained  the  baptism  of  women,  but 
he  has  not  forbidden  it.  There  is  no  indication, 
however,  that  under  his  ministry  or  that  of  John 
the  Baptist  a  single  woman  had  been  baptized. 
Their  baptism  is  probably  a  development  which 
came  later,  as  consequence  of  the  spiritual  nature 
of  Christianity,  in  which  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female,  and  because,  also,  the  rite  was  practicable 
on  both  sexes,  while  circumcision  was  not.  The 
first  time  women  are  baptized,  the  circumstance  is 
carefully  recorded  ;  it  was  an  innovation  which  had 
Philip  for  its  first  originator,  and  was  afterwards 
indorsed  and  followed  by  the  Apostles.  "  They 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."  (Acts  viii. 
12.) 


THE   COMMISSION   GIVEN.  175 

§  75.  Baptists  suppress  the  Half  of  the  Com- 
mand on  Baptism,  just  as  the  Priests  the  Half 
of  that  on  the  Holy  Supper.  But  Jesus  Christ 
commands  to  baptize  Children.  —  The  commis- 
sion of  the  Lord  is  of  such  supreme  importance  in 
the  question  of  baptism  that  we  cannot  leave  it 
without  summing  up  carefully  the  conclusions  just 
reached.  It  is  the  sole  command  to  baptize  in  the 
New  Testament.  It  does  not  institute  baptism,  but 
supposes  it  as  already  instituted  and  understood, 
either  as  to  the  mode  or  as  to  the  religious  mean- 
ing, and  for  this  sends  us  back  to  John  the  Baptist, 
and  he  in  his  turn  to  the  Old  Testament.  The 
commission  does  not  apply  to  the  Jews,  whose  right 
to  baptism  was  already  established  ;  it  applies  only 
to  the  Gentiles,  who  had  then  never  received  Chris- 
tian baptism,  and  who  are  thus  placed  on  a  level 
with  Israel.  The  order  is  strictly  only  that  of 
"  making  disciples  "  of  the  nations,  and  baptism  is 
implied  but  indirectly  in  the  command,  as  a  means 
to  execute  it.  The  baptism  precedes  the  teaching. 
The  command  places  no  conditions  previous  to  bap- 
tism, not  even  assent,  leaving  this,  however,  to  be 
necessarily  implied  either  in  the  adult  or  the  parent 
of  the  child.  There  is  no  command  of  the  Lord, 
either  expressed  or  implied,  restricting  baptism  to 
believers.  The  commission  sanctions  baptism  before 
faith,  as  John  the  Baptist  and  the  Apostles  practised 


176  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

it.  Finally,  it  enjoins  the  baptism  of  infants  just  as 
much  as  that  of  adults,  and  by  no  means  separates 
the  nations  into  two  classes,  one  of  which  is  unbap- 
tizable.  Jesus  Christ  does  not  command  the  bap- 
tism of  adults  one  whit  more  than  that  of  children 
or  infants  ;  the  Divine  authority  is  precisely  equal 
for  the  baptism  of  both.  The  priest  who  deprives 
the  laymen  of  the  cup,  and  who  decides  arbitrarily 
that  "  Drink  ye  all "  means  all  the  clergy,  and  that 
a  special  order  is  wanted  for  the  laymen,  does  not 
trample  upon  the  Word  of  God  any  more  than  the 
Baptist  does.  If  we  baptize  infants,  it  is  because 
Jesus  Christ  has  commanded  us  to  do  so,  and  be- 
cause we  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  disobey  him.  If 
there  is  no  authority  for  baptizing  children,  there 
is  none  either  for  baptizing  adults.  The  baptism 
of  infants,  or  no  baptism  at  all,  such  is  Scripture. 
The  sole  restriction  as  to  subjects,  to  which  the  text 
might  lend  itself,  is  the  baptism  of  males,  which  lit- 
erally is  alone  prescribed,  while  that  of  women  is 
left  unmentioned. 

These  conclusions  are  important  ones ;  not  only 
do  they  elucidate  the  subject,  but  they  point  out  to 
us  in  what  direction  we  must  pursue  our  investiga- 
tions on  baptism.  A  glance  backwards  on  the  Old 
Testament  becomes  indispensable. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE   ANTECEDENTS   OF  EVANGELICAL  BAPTISM. 

§  76.    The  New  Testament  is   incomplete   in 

reference  to  Baptism.  —  "When  Jesus  Christ  en- 
tered on  his  ministry,  he  found  the  baptism  of 
water  already  established  and  practised  by  his  fore- 
runner ;  he  only  continued  it,  limiting  it  to  the 
Jews  while  he  lived,  and  extending  it  to  the  Gen- 
tiles after  his  death.  But  of  whom  had  John  the 
Baptist  himself  learned  the  ceremony  ?  Where  did 
he  ascertain  its  mode,  its  religious  import,  and  the 
subjects  who  are  to  receive  it  ?  Was  a  special  reve- 
lation made  to  instruct  him  in  reference  to  this  rite, 
or  did  he  find  the  practice  already  established,  and 
only  continued  it,  and  made  it  more  special  in  con- 
nection with  the  expected  coming  of  the  Messiah  ? 
Besides,  was  John  himself  baptized  ?  If  he  was 
not,  what  right  had  he  to  impose  on  others  as  neces- 
sary a  ceremony  which  he  had  not  himself  under- 
gone ?  If  he  had  gone  through  it,  who  then  had 
baptized  him  ? 

8*  L 


178  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

Here  are  a  good  many  questions,  very  important 
and  indeed  essential  to  the  study  of  baptism,  which 
without  their  solution  can  neither  be  understood 
nor  practised  with  any  certainty ;  and  yet  they  re- 
main without  an  answer  in  the  New  Testament. 
John  received  no  special  revelation  on  the  rite  of 
baptism.  He  only  received  the  order  to  baptize  the 
people  with  water  (John  i.  33),  but  that  was  all. 
This  does  not  imply  that  lie  was  the  first  to  baptize, 
any  more  than  the  order  given  to  Paul  to  preach 
will  show  that  no  one  had  ever  preached  before 
him.  On  the  contrary,  the  order,  to  be  understood, 
supposes  the  practice  already  established.  Now,  it 
is  without  precedent,  and  we  might  well  say  impos- 
sible, that  God  should  have  instituted  a  new  cere- 
mony, without  clearly  explaining  it,  without  stating 
its  religious  import,  without  fixing  its  symbolical 
meaning,  and  without  prescribing  its  mode  of  per- 
formance. When  circumcision  is  first  established, 
into  how  many  precise  details  goes  Scripture,  so 
that  there  should  be  no  room  for  doubt  and  uncer- 
tainty !  See  again,  later,  with  what  care,  what  pre- 
cision, the  sacrifices  and  all  the  ceremonies  of  the 
law  are  introduced.  And  under  the  New  Covenant, 
notice  how  the  same  care,  the  same  precautions, 
are  taken,  in  order  to  institute  the  sacrament  of  the 
Holy  Supper.  Jesus  prescribes  the  mode,  he  ex- 
plains the  import  of  the  rite,  and  the  Apostles,  after 


THE   ANTECEDENTS   OF   EVANGELICAL   BAPTISM.     179 

him,  repeat  again  to  the  faithful  the  very  words  of 
Christ  instituting  the  ordinance,  so  as  to  have  it  well 
understood,  But  as  to  baptism,  there  are  no  words 
of  its  institution,  either  from  John  the  Baptist,  or 
from  Jesus  Christ,  or  from  any  of  the  Apostles ; 
and  the  only  command  concerning  it,  that  of  the 
Lord,  prescribes  solely  the  baptism  of  the  heathen, 
and  implies  the  anterior  existence  of  the  ceremony. 
Here  and  there  you  can  catch  in  the  Biblical  ac- 
counts of  baptism,  or  in  the  allusions  made  to  it  by 
the  Apostles,  some  fragments  of  its  doctrine  or  of  its 
practice,  which  are  as  so  many  dispersed  rays  of 
light,  which  have  to  be  gathered  and  concentrated 
with  great  labor,  but  with  only  a  partial  success, 
leaving  ample  room  for  fancy  and  discord.  The 
assistance  of  the  Fathers  is  called  in,  and  their  ob- 
scure statements,  united  to  the  incomplete  data  of 
the  New  Testament,  are  used  for  the  erection  of  a 
baptismal  scaffolding,  and  the  higher  it  rises,  the 
more  one  feels  that  there  is  something  wanting  in 
the  foundations.  Baptist  or  Pedobaptist,  each  en- 
deavors to  prop  up  his  tottering  edifice  even  with 
the  most  flimsy  materials  ;  but  the  moment  the 
wind  blows  fresh  from  the  regions  of  criticism  or 
logic,  the  whole  crumbles  down. 

§  77.    There   are  Three    Alternatives  :    1.  Re- 
ject   Baptism    altogether.      2.    Conduct    it   on 


'1 


180  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

Tradition  and  Fancy.  3.  Connect  it  with  the 
Old  Testament.  —  This  gap,  this  great  deficiency 
in  the  Gospel,  compels  us  to  one  of  the  three  follow- 
ing alternatives. 

First  alternative.  —  Leave  the  baptism  of  water 
entirely  aside,  as  impracticable  for  us.  We  should 
in  this  case  acknowledge,  with  Quakers  and  So- 
ciuians,  that  it  was  a  transitory  rite,  destined  to 
introduce  Christianity  into  the  world,  but  the  prac- 
tice of  which  belonged  only  to  the  beginnings  of  the 
new  dispensation,  and  that,  if  we  have  neither  com- 
mands nor  positive  instructions  in  regard  to  it,  the 
reason  is  that  it  was  never  intended  we  should  prac- 
tise it.  Many  Evangelical  Christians  in  our  days, 
without  professing  openly  this  opinion,  conform 
tacitly  to  it.  Shaken  in  their  views  through  the 
Baptists,  but  feeling  considerable  repugnance  to  join 
them,  they  remain  half-way  in  a  practical  negation 
of  baptism,  having  lost  confidence  in  the  one  they 
received,  and  refraining  both  from  being  re-baptized 
themselves,  or  from  having  their  children  baptized. 
This  passive  negativism,  which  is  on  the  increase, 
serves  admirably  the  interests  of  the  Baptists  ;  for 
if  it  does  not  secure  the  parent  to  their  church,  it 
at  least  forces  adult  baptism  on  his  children.  Ex- 
tremes often  meet,  and  unbelief  promotes  effectually 
the  practice  of  a  baptism  of  believers  only,  for  it. 
cannot  be  denied  that  both  infidels  and  Baptists  are 
perfectly  agreed  in  rejecting  infant  baptism. 


THE  ANTECEDENTS  OF  EVANGELICAL  BAPTISM.  181 

Second  alternative.  —  The  attempt  can  be  made 
to  construct  the  doctrine  of  baptism  on  the  very- 
incomplete  data  of  the  New  Testament,  by  adding 
materials  drawn  from  the  Fathers,  and  filling  up 
with  hypothesis  and  probabilities.  This  is  the  fash- 
ion of  Baptists  and  Romanists,  and  unfortunately 
also  to  some  extent  of  Pedobaptists.  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  materials  drawn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment alone  are  totally  insufficient,  while  those  from 
the  Fathers  are  at  least  a  whole  century  posterior 
to  the  Apostles,  and  already  well  impregnated  with 
superstition.  So  that,  when  this  second  alternative 
is  adopted,  the  field  is  opened  to  imagination,  and 
a  superficial  but  inventive  mind  will  be  able,  with- 
out much  exertion,  to  construct  either  the  baptism 
of  Romanists,  or  that  of  Greeks,  or  that  of  Luther- 
ans, or  that  of  Puseyites,  or  that  of  Baptists,  or 
again  that  of  Mormons  ;  but  such  baptism  will  ever 
be,  in  relation  to  Scripture,  but  a  castle  in  the  air. 

Tliird  alternative.  —  Finally,  the  origin  of  bap- 
tism will  be  sought  in  an  epoch  anterior  to  John 
the  Baptist ;  it  will  be  ascertained  whether  the  New 
Testament  does  not  connect  the  rite  with  something 
antecedent,  which  explains  it,  and  whether  bap- 
tism does  not  borrow  essentially  the  character  of 
another  ceremony,  more  ancient,  to  which  it  is  first 
associated,  and  for  which  it  is  then  substituted.  In 
a  word,  the  whole  Bible,  and  not  the  New  Testa- 


182  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER 

ment  alone,  will  be  taken  as  the  legitimate  field  of 
investigation  for  baptism.  In  this  case,  neither  the 
mode,  nor  the  meaning,  nor  the  practice  of  baptism 
shall  any  longer  be  vague,  nor  a  theme  for  religious 
fancy,  but  they  shall  be  determined  with  precision 
by  antecedents.  It  will  be  readily  understood  that 
we  point  here  to  the  Mosaical  ablutions,  the  cove- 
nants, and  circumcision.  Indeed,  with  all  this  do  we 
connect  baptism.  Far  more,  we  protest  that  there 
can  be  no  real  knowledge  of  baptism  without  these 
antecedents,  that  without  them  the  rite  becomes 
uncertain  and  impracticable,  and  that  all  which  is 
constructed  outside  of  these  premises  is  not  really 
baptism,  but  another  spurious  ceremony,  a  fac- 
simile of  modern  invention,  to  which  a  usurped 
name,  borrowed  from  Scripture,  has  been  added. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

PUKIFICATION  AND   THE  BAPTISMS   OF  THE   OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

§78.    The  Baptism  of  Water  is  Purification 

Symbolical  and  Religious.  —  "Christ  has  sancti- 
fied and  cleansed  the  Church  with  the  washing  of 
water  by  the  Word."  (Eph.  v.  26.)  Or,  more  cor- 
rectly, according  to  the  original,  "  Christ  has  sancti- 
fied the  Church  in  purifying  it  by  the  washing  of  the 
water  in  his  Word."  In  these  terms  does  Paul 
allude  to  the  figure  of  baptism.  He  calls  it  "  a 
washing  of  water  which  purifies,"  and  elsewhere 
"  a  washing  of  regeneration  and  of  renewing." 
(Titus  iii.  5,  original.)  Purification  was  thus  the 
leading  idea  of  baptism  with  the  Apostles.  First, 
external  purification  of  the  flesh  through  the  water, 
then  internal  purification  of  the  soul  through  the 
Spirit.  This  is  the  thought  of  Peter,  when  he 
speaks  of  water-baptism  as  "  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh."  This  was  the  thought  of  Jesus 
Christ  when  he  washed  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  and 


184  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

used  the  external  purification  of  water  as  a  type  of 
that  internal  purification,  without  which  there  is  no 
salvation.     "  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part 

with  me He  that  is  washed  needeth  not  save 

to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit ;  and  ye  are 
clean,  but  not  all."  (John  xiii.  8,  10.)  Finally,  it 
is  only  purification  which  both  the  disciples  of  John 
and  the  Jews  saw  in  baptism.  "  There  arose  a 
question  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the 
Jews  about  purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John, 
and  said  to  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee,  be- 
hold, the  same  baptizeth."  The  question  of  purify- 
ing was  thus  one  of  baptism.  (John  iii.  25,  26.) 
Water  was  kept  in  "  water-pots  of  stone,  after  the 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews."  (ii.  6.) 
"  When  the  Jews  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  baptize,  they  eat  not.  They  baptize  also,  cups, 
pots,  and  beds."  (Mark  vii.  4,  orig.)  Pilate  him- 
self, though  a  pagan,  in  conformity  with  the  popular 
idea,  washes  his  hands  publicly,  as  a  religious  sym- 
bol of  innocence,  of  purification  from  the  crime 
which  is  about  to  be  perpetrated.  All  these  wash- 
ings and  baptisms  with  regard  to  purification  were 
religious  customs  of  the  Jews,  long  established,  and 
perfectly  understood  by  the  whole  people,  so  that 
to  them  the  baptism  of  John  needed  no  explana- 
tion ;  it  was  the  purification  of  a  people  preparing 
for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.     But  the  custom 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  185 

was  not  the  creation  of  these  Jews,  they  had  inher- 
ited it  from  their  forefathers  ;  it  was  prescribed  to 
them  by  the  law  of  Moses,  although  they  had  exag- 
gerated it  through  their  traditions.  Thus  also  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  connects  so  inti- 
mately the  New  Covenant  with  the  Old,  has  not 
failed  to  speak  of  baptism  in  the  same  Mosaical 
sense,  as  being  an  external  purification,  type  of  the 
internal  one.  It  says,  "  Having  our  hearts  sprin- 
kled from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water."  (Heb.  x.  22.-)  Finally,  the 
same  Epistle  classes  "  the  doctrine  of  baptisms " 
amongst  the  elementary  doctrines  of  Christianity 
(vi.  3),  and,  referring  again  to  these  "  divers  wash- 
ings "  (in  the  original,  baptisms),  informs  us  that 
they  were  ordinances  of  the  law  of  Moses.  In  these 
last  two  passages  the  original  expressions  are  just 
the  same,  "  baptisms,"  and  differ  only  in  the  ver- 
sion. The  last  declaration  on  these  "  divers  bap- 
tisms "  is  formal,  and  sends  us  back  unequivocally 
to  the  Old  Testament  for  their  explanation.  Let  us, 
therefore,  conform  to  this  valuable  direction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

§  79.    The  Baptism  of  a  whole  Nation  before 

Sinai.  —  The  most  ancient  act  of  religious  puri- 
fication through  water,  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  is 
that  of  the  purification  of  the  people  at  the  moment 


186  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

when  the  law  is  to  be  promulgated  from  the  top  of 
Sinai :  "  Go  unto  the  people,  and  sanctify  them 
to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  let  them  wash  their 
clothes."  (Ex.  xix.  10,  22.)  The  priests  also 
must  be  sanctified  after  the  same  manner.  This 
sanctification  of  the  people  implied  a  conformity 
with  the  ordinances  for  purification,  a  partial  wash- 
ing of  the  body,  without  which  the  washing  of  the 
clothes  could  not  have  sanctified  them.  Purified 
clothes  put  upon  an  unpurified  body  would  have 
become  instantly  defiled  again.  "  And  thus  shalt 
thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them  ;  sprinkle  water 
of  purifying  upon  them,  and  let  them  wash  their 
clothes,  and  so  make  themselves  clean."  (Numb, 
viii.  7.)  A  lustral  sanctification  of  the  whole  peo- 
ple then  took  place  before  Sinai.  From  necessity 
this  baptism  was  administered  to  all  without  excep- 
tion, including  women  and  even  infants  ;  otherwise 
the  men,  being  alone  purified,  would  immediately 
have  been  defiled  again  by  contact  with  their  wives 
and  children,  while  they  were  to  be  kept  sanctified 
for  two  days.  It  was  a  similar  purification  of  the 
whole  people,  with  the  same  object  in  view,  and 
with  the  same  religious  and  symbolical  import, 
that  John  the  Baptist  was  ordered  from  heaven  to 
perform.  It  was  the  external  sanctification  of  the 
whole  people,  intended,  like  that  of  Sinai,  to  pre- 
pare for  the   promulgation   of  a  new  law,  —  that 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  187 

of  the  Messiah,  the  Gospel.  At  the  first  purifi- 
cation before  Sinai  there  may  have  been  some 
moral  compulsion,  for  he  who  would  have  refused 
to  let  either  himself  or  any  member  of  his  family  be 
sanctified,  would  have  been  cut  off  from  the  nation. 
The  second  national  purification  —  that  of  the  New 
Covenant  —  was,  on  the  contrary,  to  be  voluntary. 
John  was  therefore  ordered  not  to  force  it  upon 
the  people,  but  to  preach  it,  baptizing  all  who  ac- 
cepted his  message.  It  is  known  how  multitudes 
listened  to  his  voice,  and  how  the  people  were  bap- 
tized in  a  mass.  They  seemed  quite  prepared  to 
forsake  the  Old  Covenant  and  accept  the  long-prom- 
ised new  one ;  but  when  the  doctrines  of  the  latter 
were  known  to  them,  their  carnal  hearts  rebelled, 
as  formerly  Israel  in  the  desert. 

§  80.  The  Initiating  Baptism  of  the  Priest- 
hood. —  After  this  general  baptism  of  the  nation 
comes  the  special  baptism  of  the  priests,  which  is 
the  first  act  of  the  ceremony  of  ordination  to  the 
priesthood.  (Ex.  xxix.  4.)  The  order  given  to 
Moses  was  to  sanctify  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  their 
consecration  takes  place  through  the  water  and  the 
blood  successively  applied  to  their  bodies.  Aaron 
does  not  baptize  himself,  but  Moses  baptizes  him 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  and  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
in  turn,  baptize  the  future  priests,    (xl.  12-15.) 


188  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

Moses,  the  first  baptizer,  had  himself  been  previ- 
ously baptized  from  the  hand  of  God  in  the  Red 
Sea.  After  first  receiving  his  baptism  from  the 
hand  of  another,  the  priest  must  repeat  it  himself 
each  time  he  goes  into  the  holy  place,  to  indicate 
that  nothing  impure  or  defiled  shall  enter  the  abode 
of  Divinity,  and  for  this  purpose  a  laver  of  brass 
was  placed  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.  But  this 
baptism  was  not  an  immersion.  "  Aaron  and  his 
sons  shall  only  wash  their  hands  and  their  feet,  and 
this  shall  be  a  statute  forever,  through  all  genera- 
tions." (Ex.  xxx.  18,  19,  21.)  The  water  must 
even  be  always  poured  over  the  body,  and  not  the 
feet  and  hands  dipped  into  it,  for  otherwise  the 
laver  would  have  become  defiled.  (Lev.  xv.  12  ; 
2  Kings  iii.  11.)  For  the  same  reason,  immersion, 
which  was  used  only  for  some  inanimate  objects, 
always  took  place  in  running  water.  The  baptism 
of  the  priests  was  that  of  affusion  or  sprinkling. 
Again,  elsewhere,  Moses  thus  ordains  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  priests,  saying  :  "  Take  the  Levites  from 
among  the  children  of  Israel  and  cleanse  them. 
And  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them : 
Sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them."  (Numb, 
viii.  6,  7.) 

§  81.    The  Baptism  by  S  pi  'inkling   in  Purifi- 
cation for  Sin.  —  We    pass    in    silence   over  the 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  189 

lustra!  purifications  for  the  leper,  dead  bodies,  im- 
pure animals,  and  inanimate  objects,  to  reach  the 
baptism  of  purification  for  sin.  This  baptism  does 
not  take  place  without  sacrifice.  A  heifer  is  immo- 
lated, consumed  by  fire,  and  its  ashes  mingled  with 
the  water  of  baptism,  to  be  used  by  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  children  of  Israel  and  sprinkled  over 
them ;  "  it  is  a  purification  for  sin."  (Numb. 
xix.  9.)  This  passage  is  very  remarkable,  for  it, 
with  the  whole  context,  explains  both  the  essential 
meaning  of  baptism  and  its  mode.  First  it  is  called 
hi  the  Hebrew  and  by  the  Septuagint  a  water  of 
sprinkling,  and  not,  as  in  the  version,  "  a  water  of 
separation."  At  any  rate,  this  water  is  only  to 
be  sprinkled  (ver.  13,  18-21),  and  it  is  also  a 
purification  for  sin.  This  baptism  was  obligatory. 
"  The  man  that  shall  not  purify  himself  shall  be  cut 
off  from  amongst  the  congregation  ;  the  water  not 
having  been  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  is  unclean." 
(ver.  20.)  This  baptism  was  conferred  upon  all 
with  the  greatest  facility.  The  sprinkling  of  water 
was  made  upon  whomsoever  was  defiled  (ver.  13), 
and  even  upon  all  persons  present  in  an  unclean 
place,  without  distinction  of  age  or  sex.  Even  in- 
animate objects,  supposed  unclean,  such  as  tents 
and  vessels,  were  baptized  with  the  same  sprinkling 
(ver.  18).  Children  were  then  included  in  the 
prescription,  and  baptized  as  well  as  the  rest. 


190  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

§  82.  In  the  Days  of  Jesus  Christ  a  Baptist 
would  not  have  been  understood,  and  would 
have  passed  for  a  Monomaniac.  —  Such  were 
both  the  practice  and  doctrine  of  the  Jews  upon 
baptism,  from  Moses  to  Jesus  Christ.  They  were 
all  extremely  familiar  with  baptisms,  because  they 
had  been  ordered  by  God  in  the  law.  The  novelty 
of  the  baptism  of  John  could  consist  only  in  the 
modification  of  an  ancient  ceremony,  which  more- 
over had  its  analogy  in  the  baptism  of  the  people 
before  Mount  Sinai.  This  is  why  neither  John,  nor 
Jesus,  nor  the  Apostles  explain  the  ceremony  or 
prescribe  its  mode.  It  would  have  been  superflu- 
ous to  institute  or  to  explain  a  religious  usage 
which  was  universal  in  their  nation.  If  in  the 
Gospel  times  a  single  Baptist  could  have  arisen, 
no  one  would  have  listened  to  him,  for  no  one 
would  have  understood  him.  Clearly  he  would 
have  passed  for  a  lunatic  and  a  monomaniac  who 
should  have  made  it  a  case  of  conscience  not  to 
baptize  children,  when  they  baptized  even  tents, 
tables,  and  pots.  If  John  the  Baptist,  the  Lord, 
and  the  Apostles  had  wished  to  introduce  Baptist 
practice,  they  would  have  been  obliged  to  give  the 
most  formal  instructions  to  overthrow  the  estab- 
lished practice,  and  to  combat  the  notions  upon 
baptism  proceeding  from  the  Old  Testament.  They 
have  not  done  it.     It  would  have  been  necessary 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  191 

to  restrain,  through  severe  rules  of  exclusion,  the 
great  facility  with  which  baptism  was  performed. 
There  is  none,  not  even  one.  Not  a  word  of  re- 
striction. At  this  period  a  Baptist  would  have  been 
a  being  entirely  incomprehensible. 

§  83.   The  Baptism  of  the  Gospel  is  prepared 

through  the  Prophets.  —  The  prophets  prepared 
the  baptism  of  the  Gospel  by  making  the  purifica- 
tion of  water  the  symbol  of  spiritual  purification. 
They  say :  "  Wash  you,  make  you  clean."  (Is.  i. 
16  ;  iv.  4.)  "I  shall  be  sanctified  in  you ;  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean ;  from  all  your  filthiness  will  I  cleanse  you. 
A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  I  will  put 
my  spirit  within  you."  (Ezek.  xxxvi.  23  -  27.) 
"  "Wash  me  thoroughly  from  mine  iniquity,  and 
cleanse  me  from  my  sin.  Purge  me  with  hyssop, 
and  I  shall  be  clean  ;  wash  me,  and  I  shall  be 
whiter  than  snow."  (Ps.  li.  2,  7.)  To  these  decla- 
rations John  could  appeal  in  preaching  his  baptism. 

§  84.   John  the  Baptist  was  himself  baptized, 

and  that  by  Sprinkling. — At  last  the  great  proph- 
et, John  the  Baptist,  appears  on  the  scene  ;  he 
preaches  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  immi- 
nent, that  he  will  soon  establish  the  promised  New 
Covenant,  and  he  urges  the  people  to  prepare  for 


9  192  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

it  by  purifying  themselves  through  a  baptism  of 
water,  as  a  sign  of  that  purification  from  sins  of 
which  the  Messiah  brings  the  remission.  But  what 
right  has  he  to  baptize  ?  Has  he  been  baptized 
himself?  Undoubtedly  he  has,  for  he  is  the  son 
of  a  priest,  Zacharias,  and  as  the  priesthood  was 
hereditary,  and  he  had  been  brought  up  under  the 
law,  he  must  necessarily  have  entered  the  priest- 
hood at  the  age  of  thirty  (Numb.  iv.  3),  and  have 
been  ordained  to  it  through  the  baptism  of  initia- 
tion. He  had  then  received  the  baptism  of  priest- 
hood, a  unique  baptism,  which  was  never  repeated 
on  the  same  subject.  He  was  baptized  before  he 
began  his  ministry ;  he  was  himself  baptized  before 
he  baptized  others,  and  the  sole  baptism  which  he 
received  was  both  a  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  one 
ordered  by  the  law.  The  Jews  and  the  multitudes 
would  never  have  acknowledged  John's  right  to  bap- 
tize them  if  he  had  not  been  himself  a  priest,  and 
moreover  a  prophet,  for  all  held  him  to  be  such. 
This  character  could  alone  justify  his  mission  before 
the  people,  and  confer  upon  him  the  authority,  as 
upon  a  new  Moses,  of  purifying  the  whole  nation 
through  baptism. 

§  85.  John  the  Baptist  innovates  as  to  Bap- 
tism, 1>>  restricting  the  External  Form  and  ex- 
tending  the  Spiritual   Meaning. —  The   baptism 


PUBLICATION  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.    193 

of  John,  both  as  to  its  form  and  as  to  its  symbolical 
meaning,  was  deeply  rooted  in  antecedents,  and 
evolved  from  the  baptisms  which  had  preceded, 
which  had  been  ordained  of  God,  and  more  than  a 
thousand  years  in  use.  The  new  circumstances 
under  which  baptism  was  imparted  alone  modified 
the  sense,  while  retaining  the  form.  John  baptized 
for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  this  was  nothing  new,  it 
was  the  old  idea  ;  the  novelty  consisted  in  baptizing 
upon  a  special  reference  to  the  coming  of  Christ, 
and  placed  in  his  Messianic  work  the  ground  for  the 
future  remission  of  sins.  What  was  new  is  the 
further  development  of  the  spiritual  idea,  the  inti- 
mation of  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  looked 
for  after  the  baptism  of  water,  and  that  general 
confession  of  sins,  implied,  it  is  true,  in  the  baptism 
of  Moses,  but  not  in  such  a  decided  manner.  What 
was  new,  again,  is  that  John  replaced  all  the  "  di- 
vers baptisms  "  which  had  preceded  by  a  unique 
baptism  of  water,  upon  which  he  concentrated  all 
the  religious  ideas  of  former  lustrations.  While  he 
conferred  upon  the  people  a  baptism  of  purification 
of  sins,  he  administered  to  Jesus  Christ  a  baptism 
of  consecration  to  the  priesthood.  And  we  also,  in 
turn,  are  made  priests  with  John  the  Baptist  and 
with  Jesus  Christ,  in  figure,  through  the  baptism  of 
water,  and  in  reality  through  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost    which  follows. 


194  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

The  baptism  of  John  introduced  also  an  exter- 
nal innovation,  not  in  the  mode,  but  in  the  con- 
comitant circumstances  of  baptism.  He  left  aside 
the  blood,  and  retained  but  the  water.  At  the 
ordination  of  priests,  the  baptism  of  water  was  fol- 
lowed with  an  aspersion  of  the  blood  of  a  victim ; 
and  under  the  Old  Testament  the  ashes  of  a  sacri- 
fice were  introduced  into  the  water  of  the  baptism 
of  purification  for  sin.  John,  as  the  prophet-Fore- 
runner, sees  henceforth  no  sacrifice  but  that  of  the 
Lamb  of  God,  without  blemish  and  without  spot. 
He  separates  his  baptism  from  sacrifice.  What 
John  has  done,  is  therefore  but  to  simplify  and  to 
restrict,  in  its  external  mode,  an  ancient  ceremony, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  impart  a  greater  develop- 
ment to  its  spiritual  meaning.  For  this  reason  is 
the  institution  called  in  the  Gospel  the  baptism 
of  John,  not  only  to  distinguish  it  from  the  bap- 
tisms of  Moses,  but  also  because  John  alone,  and 
not  the  Apostles,  introduced  the  last  modifications  in 
the  baptism  of  water.  It  is  also  called  the  baptism 
of  repentance  to  distinguish  it  from  the  formal  and 
ceremonious  baptisms  of  the  Jews.  But  these  very 
names  imply  the  existence  of  a  baptism  previous  to 
John  ;  otherwise  the  institution  would  have  been 
simply  called  the  baptism,  and  this  would  have 
been  sufficient,  if  there  had  been  no  other  practised 
from  which  it  had  to  be  distinguished. 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  195 

§  86.  The  Baptism  of  the  Death  of  Christ,  — 
the  Consequence  and  the  Complement  of  the 
Baptism  of  Water.  —  This  symbolical  meaning  of 
the  baptism  of  water,  found  in  the  Old  Testament, 
namely,  that  of  an  external  religious  purification, 
casts  a  vivid  light  on  some  difficult  passages.  Thus, 
these  words  of  our  Saviour,  "  But  I  have  a  baptism 
to  be  baptized  with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it 
be  accomplished !  "  (Luke  xii.  50)  ;  and  again, 
when  he  says  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  "  Are  ye  able 
to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with  ?  "  (Matt.  xx.  22.)  Let  us  insert  here  the 
true  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  namely,  to  puri- 
fy, and  thus  regard  it  as  signifying  not  only  the 
purification,  but  also  the  sacrifice  for  sin  and  the 
consecration  to  the  priesthood  ;  how  clear  and  spir- 
itual then  becomes  the  import  of  these  passages ! 
Here  is  the  high-priest  consecrating  himself  through 
his  blood,  offering  himself  for  the  people  as  a  pro- 
pitiation for  their  sins,  which  he  bears  upon  himself. 
Sacrifice  was  wanting  as  an  integral  part  of  the  new 
baptism  introduced  under  the  Gospel ;  Jesus  Christ 
will  himself  complete  baptism.  (Heb.  ix.  24,  26  ; 
x.  12,  13.)  "  He  comes  by  water  and  blood,  not 
by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood."  He  begins 
his  ministry  by  water,  and  he  ends  it  by  blood. 
Henceforth  baptism  will  remind  us  of  the  beginning 
of  his  work,  of  the  necessity  on  our  part  of  repent- 


196  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ance,  and  the  need  of  a  remission  of  sins  ;  while  the 
Holy  Supper  will  make  us  remember  the  end  of  his 
work,  its  accomplishment  through  his  blood  poured 
out.  Baptism  will  be  a  look  cast  at  the  future ;  the 
Supper,  a  remembrance  of  the  past.  The  Son  of 
man,  loaded  as  he  was  with  the  guilt  of  mankind, 
was  straitened  until  his  expiatory  career  was  closed, 
until  he  was  purified  and  consecrated  through  a 
bloody  death.  The  sons  of  Zebedee  were  baptized 
with  water,  but  they  had  not  yet  been  baptized  with 
this  baptism  which  Jesus  Christ  expected.  They 
had  not  been  baptized  into  his  death,  and  yet  Jesus 
Christ  announces  to  them  that  at  some  future  time 
they  will  share  in  his  baptism :  "  Ye  shall  indeed 
be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized 
with."  Yes,  and  every  regenerated  believer  is  bap- 
tized into  the  death  of  Christ  through  the  very  fact 
of  his  faith.  He  is  crucified  with  him,  dead  with 
him,  and  raised  up  with  him.  But  this  spiritual 
baptism  the  Apostles  received  only  long  after  their 
baptism  of  water,  and  the  thief  on  the  cross  shared 
in  this  baptism,  without  having  ever  passed  through 
a  baptismal  ceremony. 

§  87.    "Who    are   those  who  are   Baptized  for 

the  Dead.  —  The  baptism  for  the  dead  (1  Cor.  xv. 
29),  which  has  tortured  so  many  commentators,  and 
upon  which  there  are  so  many  hypotheses  afloat, 


PURIFICATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT.  197 

owes  all  its  obscurity  to  the  pertinacity  with  which 
a  Christian  baptism  has  been  sought  in  the  practice 
alluded  to  here.  Paul  refers  simply  to  the  Mosaic 
custom  of  being  baptized  for  the  dead  when  defiled 
by  contact  with  them.  (Numb,  xix.)  This  custom 
had  already  been  called  in  the  Septuagint  "  being 
baptized  from  the  dead"  (see  §20).  The  Apostle 
employs  here  an  argument  ad  hominem.  Those  who 
denied  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  were  the  Sad- 
ducees ;  several  of  the  disciples  had  once  belonged 
to  that  sect,  and  still  retained  more  or  less  that 
error.  But  these  people  continued  to  observe  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  undoubtedly,  like  other  Jews, 
attached  much  importance  to  their  ablutions.  Paul 
therefore  argues  with  them,  saying:  What  signifi- 
cance can  a  religious  purification  for  the  dead  have, 
if  there  be  no  resurrection  of  the  body  ?  Impurity 
is  what  ought  not  to  be.  But  if  death  is  the  abso- 
lute end  of  man,  the  permanent  state  to  which  he 
is  destined,  it  is  no  longer  an  impurity,  it  cannot 
imply  religious  defilement.  The  doctrine  of  puri- 
fications becomes  an  aimless  folly,  for  it  can  have 
sense  only  inasmuch  as  death  is  an  abnormal  state, 
a  thing  not  to  be  ;  baptism  for  the  dead,  therefore, 
inevitably  implies  resurrection.  Such  an  argument 
may  appear  singular  to  us,  but  it  was  probably  the 
strongest  that  could  be  employed  on  that  point  with 
converted  Jews.     At  any  rate,  the  baptism  for  the 


198  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

dead,  being  a  Scriptural  fact  of  the  Old  Testament, 
it  is  not  fair  to  set  it  aside  in  this  passage,  in  order 
to  select  one  of  the  thirty  and  more  groundless 
hypotheses  which  have  been  proposed  in  explana- 
tion. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

BAPTISM,  THE   CHURCH  AND  THE  FAMILY. 

§  88.  The  Question  of  Baptism  ought  not  to 
become  complicated  with  that  of  the  Church, 
but  should  remain  Distinct  and  Independent.  — 

The  Church  question  interferes  to  complicate  that 
of  baptism  in  most  of  the  works  on  the  latter  sub- 
ject. These  make  an  ecclesiastical  affair  of  baptism 
by  the  following  very  logical  reasoning :  Baptism 
is  a  sign  of  admission  into  the  Church,  and  gives  a 
right  of  entrance  there  ;  it  is  therefore  an  institu- 
tion of  the  Church,  which  belongs  peculiarly  to  it, 
which  it  alone  has  the  right  to  confer,  which  de- 
pends upon  it,  and  which  cannot  be  separated  from 
it.  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  are  agreed  on  this 
point,  and  connect  their  discipline  more  or  less  with 
their  baptism.  We  have  nevertheless  the  temerity 
to  deny  this  relation  entirely,  and  to  believe  that 
baptism  exists  independently  of  the  Church.  Let 
us  not  be  condemned  unheard  !  Our  reason  for  iso- 
lating the  study  of  baptism  from  all  church  theory 


200  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

is  very  simple ;  it  is,  that  baptism  existed  and  was 
practised  a  long  time  before  the  foundation  of  the 
Church ;  it  is  then  independent  of  it,  and  has  its 
own  complete  autonomy.  Doubtless  the  Church 
which  is  come  after  is  bound  to  regard  it,  to  recog- 
nize it  as  the  oldest  evangelical  institution  ;  it  can, 
and  even  ought  to  make  it  a  preliminary  condition 
for  the  admission  of  its  members.  But  it  cannot 
alter  this  rite,  either  as  to  its  mode,  or  as  to  its  sym- 
bolical sense,  or  as  to  the  class  of  persons  to  be  its 
recipients,  for  the  rite  is  anterior  to  the  Church. 
Baptism  can  explain  the  Church,  but  the  Church 
cannot  explain  baptism.  The  Church  can  only 
confirm  this  ordinance,  lean  upon  it,  and  make  use 
of  it.  Many  baptized  persons  never  become  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  but  all  the  members  of  a  church 
are  baptized.  Baptism  then  occupies  a  larger  arena 
than  the  Church. 

Ecclesiastical  preoccupations  have  proved  fatal  to 
the  study  of  baptism.  By  wishing  to  explain  its 
doctrine  through  that  of  the  Church,  it  has  been 
embroiled,  confused,  and  rendered  more  intricate, 
by  mixing  it  up  with  materials  foreign  to  it.  The 
Church  question  is  at  least  as  doubtful,  as  difficult, 
as  much  controverted  now-a-days  as  that  of  baptism. 
Therefore,  by  trying  to  make  the  one  doctrine  de- 
pendent upon  the  other,  uncertainty  and  confusion 
have  only  been  increased.     No  doubt  that  when  one 


BAPTISM,  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  FAMILY.    201 

has  on  hand  a  ready-made  church  theory,  the  temp- 
tation to  impose  it  upon  baptism,  and  put  the  lat- 
ter into  shape  for  propping  up  some  ecclesiastical 
organization,  is  wellnigh  irresistible.  But  then  the 
object  of  convincing  others  in  reference  to  baptism 
fails,  except  in  the  case  of  those  holding  similar 
ecclesiastical  views,  who  are  precisely  those  who 
least  need  to  be  convinced.  Indeed,  the  reproach 
might  be  made  to  one  of  the  most  considerable 
works  published  on  baptism,  that  it  is  much  less  a 
treatise  on  baptism  than  a  treatise  on  the  Church 
with  special  reference  to  baptism. 

§  89.    A  Church  does  not  haptize,  and  Bap- 
tism   does    not    introduce   into    a    Church.  —  A 

very  evident  fact  is  that  a  church  never  baptizes. 
It  cannot  do  so.  But  it  is  always  an  individual  who 
baptizes,  either  after  the  rules  laid  down  by  this  or 
that  church,  or  independently  of  all  these  rules,  and 
upon  his  sole  individual  responsibility.  It  would 
be  an  abuse  of  language  to  say  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church  has  baptized  a  child,  because  the  rite 
was  performed  by  a  Presbyterian  minister.  More- 
over, there  is  not  on  earth  one  sole  and  universal 
visible  Church ;  but  there  are  several  churches, 
which  often  exclude  each  other,  and  whose  baptisms 
differ  widely.  Thus,  if  it  were  the  Church  that 
baptized  through  its  ministerial  agent,  it  would  be 

9* 


202  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

entitled  to  baptize  only  for  its  own  account,  and 
would  impart,  through  baptism,  no  right  of  admis- 
sion into  other  churches.  A  man  baptized  in  the 
Lutheran  Church  would  belong  to  it,  and  should 
be  re-baptized  before  being  received  into  another 
church.  Let  a  Nestorian  priest  baptize  a  child  or 
an  adult  while  travelling  in  the  United  States,  and 
we  shall  ask,  To  what  church  has  he  initiated  the 
receiver  of  this  baptism  ?  Shall  the  latter  be  con- 
sidered as  belonging  to  the  Nestorian  Church  ? 
Shall  he  be  re-baptized  for  admission  into  one  of  the 
churches  of  the  country  ?  And  supposing  that  the 
baptizer  should  not  himself  belong  to  any  church, 
that,  for  instance,  he  has  just  been  converted  while 
travelling,  shall  the  validity  of  the  baptism  he  has 
conferred  be  disputed  ?  No,  the  baptism  will  be 
acknowledged  by  all  as  valid,  although  it  never 
introduced  the  receiver  into  any  church,  just  as  the 
baptisms  of  John  the  Baptist  and  of  the  Lord  were 
valid,  although  they  did  not  admit  into  any  church. 
Thus  baptism,  as  an  initiation  into  a  church,  is  a 
dogmatic  fiction.  It  is  not  found  in  Scripture,  but 
is  an  ecclesiastical  rule  subsequent  to  Apostolical 
times.  A  church  may  with  propriety  admit  only 
baptized  members  into  its  bosom ;  but  Scriptural 
baptism  does  not  per  se  admit  to  any  church-mem- 
bership. 


BAPTISM,   THE  CHURCH  AND   THE  FAMILY.        203 

§  90.    Baptism  is  above  all  the  Institution  of 

tlie  Christian  Family.  —  But  if  baptism  exists  in- 
dependently of  all  churches,  it  is  certainly  at  least 
an  institution  of  the  Christian  family.  It  is  even 
here  essentially  that  we  recognize  its  importance. 
We  are  convinced,  from  Scripture,  that  baptism  is 
not  only  the  first  external  and  formal  bond  which 
ties  man  to  his  Creator,  but  that  it  binds  also  the 
whole  family  to  God,  through  its  chief,  and  the 
members  of  a  household  towards  each  other,  and 
that  each  man,  woman,  and  child  should  receive 
this  sign  and  carry  it  with  him. 

We  shall  proceed  still  further,  and  show  that, 
whenever  baptism  is  neglected  as  an  institution  of 
the  family,  it  is  virtually  denied  by  the  head  of  the 
house.  We  shall  establish  that  there  is  no  true 
baptism  except  that  in  which  all  the  members  of  a 
Christian  family  are  allowed  to  share,  and  that  the 
baptism  which  excludes  children,  namely,  that  of 
Baptists,  is  vitiated  through  that  very  exclusion, 
that  it  is  for  the  parent  who  receives  it  a  cere- 
mony incomplete,  unfinished,  and  therefore  not 
valid.  Just  as  we  hold  that  the  communion  which 
proceeds  as  far  as  the  bread,  but  stops  there  and 
withholds  the  cup,  is  incomplete  and  virtually  no 
communion  at  all ;  just  so  do  we  hold  that  the 
baptism  of  a  parent,  which  does  not  extend  to  his 
children,  but  is  purposely  withheld  from  them,  is 


204  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

incomplete,  is  virtually  no  baptism  at  all.  It  will 
follow  that  Baptist  church-members  may  be  held 
as  unbaptized  Christians  so  long  as  they  refuse  to 
complete  the  Christian  rite  by  allowing  it  to  be 
extended  to  their  household.  This,  it  will  be  ob- 
jected, is  taking  rather  high  ground,  and  going 
much  beyond  Pedobaptists.  We  do  not  deny  it ; 
but  let  our  proofs  be  carefully  examined  in  the 
following  chapters. 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS   AND   THEIR  SIGNS. 

&  91 .   Every  Covenant  is  necessarily  confirmed 
by  a  Seal,  an  Oath,  or  some  Symbolical  Sign.  — 

Baptism  is  the  sign  of  the  New  Covenant,  just  as 
circumcision  is  that  of  the  Old.  All  are  agreed  on 
this  point,  which  need  not  therefore  be  proved. 
They  differ  only  on  the  relation  and  analogy  exist- 
ing between  the  two  signs,  some  denying  that  the 
one  should  have  taken  the  place  of  the  other,  that 
they  should  have  the  same  import,  and  be  conferred 
upon  the  same  subjects  or  according  to  the  same 
principles.  We  shall  have  to  examine,  therefore, 
Bible  in  hand,  what  relation  circumcision  bears  to 
baptism  ;  but  we  must  preface  this  study  by  anoth- 
er, much  more  general  and  comprehensive,  upon 
the  covenants  themselves,  upon  the  nature  of  their 
signs  of  initiation,  and  upon  the  symbolical  mean- 
ing of  the  latter.  We  shall  ascertain  that  there  are 
in  the  Bible,  general  principles,  sure  and  necessary, 
which  apply  to  any  covenant  and  to  the  imparting 


206  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

of  its  sign.  And  we  shall  decide  what  rules  Scrip- 
ture lays  down  as  to  the  signs  of  a  covenant,  and 
as  to  the  persons  upon  whom  these  signs  are  to  be 
conferred. 

First,  what  is  a  sign  given  of  God  to  man  in 
order  to  insure  a  promise  ?  Men  vouch  for  their 
most  solemn  engagements  in  various  ways.  First 
through  written  agreements  to  which  they  append 
their  signatures.  A  higher  degree  of  certainty  is 
imparted  to  the  document  when  to  the  signature  a 
seal  is  added.  As  long  as  the  seal  is  not  broken,  it 
remains  the  material,  unchangeable,  and  impassible 
witness  of  a  serious  promise,  and  it  binds  the  signer 
more  than  the  signature  alone  would  do,  because 
it  is  a  new  and  superadded  sign  of  confirmation. 
When  to  an  engagement  given  verbally  a  solemn 
gesture  is  added,  such  as  a  hand  laid  over  the 
heart,  or  any  other  external  demonstration,  this  is 
a  sign  which  imparts  more  weight  to  the  words. 
Finally,  men  have  instituted  the  oath  as  the  most 
solemn  confirmation  of  a  treaty,  an  alliance,  or  even 
any  serious  engagement.  But  the  oath  is  composed 
of  two  distinct  parts,  —  the  word  and  the  external 
sign  of  gesture.  The  latter  is  used  only  to  give 
greater  weight  to  the  former ;  it  is  of  itself  a  lan- 
guage understood  of  all,  more  awful  and  also  more 
precise  and  more  true  inasmuch  as  it  leaves  no 
room  for  the  ambiguity  often  concealed  in  words. 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS   AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    207 

This  sign  of  the  hand  lifted  towards  heaven,  while 
the  words  of  the  oath  are  being  uttered,  binds  man 
both  towards  God  and  towards  his  fellow-men  who 
witness  his  gesture.  God  could  not  close  an  alli- 
ance with  man  without  introducing  also  some  sign, 
some  religious  symbol,  less  perishable  than  the  writ- 
ing and  sealing  of  a  document,  which  should  be 
distinct  from  the  oath  used  in  earthly  transactions, 
and  which,  however,  should  be  sufficiently  solemn  to 
bind  man  to  God  and  to  his  fellow-men.  Moreover, 
it  was  proper  that  with  each  change  of  covenant 
there  should  also  be  an  external  modification  of  the 
sign,  to  express  in  symbolical  language  the  religious 
change  in  the  alliance. 

§  92.    The  Three  Covenants  of  the  Lord,  and 
their  Signs ;  Baptists  arbitrarily  limit  the  Third. 

—  These  alterations  indeed  took  place,  and  while 
undergoing  three  covenants  with  the  Lord,  man- 
kind has  also  received  three  successive  signs.  First 
in  order  comes  the  covenant  concluded  with  Noah, 
and  which  has  for  its  sign  the  rainbow.  This  sign 
is  not  put  in  the  flesh ;  God  alone  performs  it,  and 
man  has  no  hand  in  it.  Then  the  second  cove- 
nant, the  sign  of  which,  circumcision,  is  placed  in 
the  flesh,  practised  by  men,  but  limited  to  one  sex. 
Finally,  the  third  covenant,  which  has  for  its  sign 
baptism,  is  conferred  upon  both  sexes.     But  here, 


208  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

according  to  Baptists,  God,  in  extending  to  women 
the  sign  of  his  alliance,  limited  it  on  another  side 
by  taking  it  away  from  children.  Such  curtail- 
ment of  religious  privilege  seems  at  the  very  first 
glance  incredible  and  monstrous,  and  it  would  re- 
quire very  solid  proof  and  very  formal  declarations 
to  lead  us  to  admit  for  a  moment  such  a  contra- 
diction in  the  designs  of  God,  such  an  abridgment 
of  his  favors.  But  let  us  examine  successively  the 
signs  of  each  alliance  and  the  conditions  with  which 
they  are  connected. 

§  93.  The  First  Covenant  is  concluded  with 
Noah,  hut  not  without  the  Participation  of  his 
Children.  —  The  alliance  of  God  with  Noah  ex- 
tends to  all  his  race,  but  is  officially  concluded  only 
with  the  males,  Noah  and  his  sons.  "  And  God 
spake  unto  Noah,  and  to  his  sons  with  him,  saying, 
And  behold,  I  establish  my  covenant  with  you,  and 
with  your  seed  after  you  ;  and  with  every  living 
creature.  This  is  the  token  of  the  covenant  which 
I  make  between  me  and  you  and  every  living  crea- 
ture that  is  with  you,  for  perpetual  generations  :  I 
do  set  my  bow  in  the  cloud,  and  it  shall  be  for  a 
token  of  a  covenant  between  me  and  the  earth." 
(Gen.  ix.  8  - 12.)  The  terms  of  this  covenant  are 
very  general :  it  includes  very  certainly  children 
and  infants,  since  it  extends  even  to  the  fowls  of  the 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    200 

air.  It  is  not  a  covenant  of  spiritual  salvation,  but 
a  covenant  of  earthly  salvation,  a  temporal  mercy, 
the  right  of  living,  the  promise  of  preserving  animal 
existence.  This  covenant  has  not  been  abolished 
by  the  accession  of  the  two  succeeding  ones ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  still  lasts,  it  is  perpetual.  Its  sign 
is  like  the  sun  in  the  heavens,  which  shines  for 
everybody ;  it  extends  to  the  whole  of  animated 
creation,  which  is  all  included  in  this  covenant. 

§  94.  The  Second  Covenant  is  made  with 
Abraham  and  his  Children.  As  the  Third  does 
not  annul  the  other  Two,  its  Sign  alone  sut- 
fices  for  and  confirms  all  Three.  —  The  second 
alliance  is  concluded  with  Abraham ;  not  with 
Moses,  who  came  four  hundred  years  later,  and 
whose  law  altered  nothing  in  the  conditions  of 
the  covenant.  Let  us  here  authenticate  at  once 
two  important  facts.  One  is,  that  the  second  cov- 
enant did  not  annul  the  first,  which  continues  until 
now  in  full  force  ;  the  other  is,  that  the  abolition 
of  the  law  of  Moses  does  in  no  way  affect  the  sec- 
ond alliance,  or  alter  any  of  its  terms,  for  it  is 
older  than  the  law,  and  independent  of  it.  When 
the  third  covenant  is  introduced,  it  will  let  the 
second  subsist,  and  only  be  added  to  it,  unless  God 
orders  differently  in  very  express  words.  But  far 
from  this,  the  New  Testament   expressly  reserves 


210  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  namely,  the  second 
covenant,  as  being  permanent,  and  the  inheritance 
of  Gentiles.  The  third  alliance  has  only  added  to 
the  first  two  without  taking  away  anything.  Not  so 
with  signs,  otherwise  called  tokens.  That  of  the 
second  covenant  must  needs  have  fallen  into  disuse, 
for  since  the  third  covenant  confirmed  all  the  privi- 
leges of  the  other  two,  the  sign  confirmatory  of  the 
last  alliance  inevitably  seals  alone  all  that  the  first 
two  signs  sealed. 

§  95.  The  Alliance  made  with  Abraham 
is  perpetual,  and  is  neither  abrogated  nor 
abridged  by  a  subsequent  Alliance. — The  cove- 
nant entered  into  with  Abraham,  say  the  Baptists, 
was  a  carnal  alliance,  referring  only  to  the  Jewish 
race,  and  it  is  abolished.  Not  so  does  Saint  Paul 
understand  it.  (Rom.  iv. ;  Gal.  iii.)  He  considers, 
on  the  contrary,  this  alliance  as  essentially  spiritual 
and  unchangeable  ;  and,  indeed,  as  such  did  God 
give  it  to  Abraham.  "  The  Lord  appeared  to  him, 
and  said,  I  am  the  Almighty  God ;  walk  before  me, 
and  be  thou  perfect.  And  I  will  make  my  cove- 
nant between  me  and  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a 
father  of  many  nations,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of 
thee.  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto 


THE  NATUEE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.   211 

thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  Every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised,  and  my  covenant 
shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant. 
And  the  uncircumcised  man  shall  be  cut  off  from 
his  people  ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant."  (Gen. 
xvii.  1  - 14.)  We  could  not  think  of  giving  the 
lie  to  God,  and  therefore  we  believe  him  upon  his 
own  word  when  he  solemnly  declares  that  his  cov- 
enant with  Abraham  is  an  everlasting  one.  We 
believe  also,  without  the  slightest  hesitation,  the 
subsequent  declarations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  when, 
after  the  introduction  of  the  third  covenant,  he 
teaches  us  that  the  second  is  not  abrogated,  and 
confirms  unto  us  its  spiritual  import.  We  accept 
also,  without  raising  difficulties,  the  interpretation 
which  Paul  gives  of  this  text,  when  he  explains  that 
this  promise  of  becoming  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions does  not  concern  the  Jewish  race,  which  forms 
only  one  nation,  but  the  Gentiles,  and  that  this  is 
a  paternity  of  faith.  (Rom.  iv.  12,  17,  18.)  We 
accept  also  his  explanation  that  the  promise  made 
in  reference  to  the  seed  implies  Christ,  and  that 
through  Christ  all  believers  under  the  third  cove- 
nant are  the  seed  of  Abraham.  "  And  if  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  (Gal.  iii.  15,  16,  29.) 
We  have  therefore  God's  pledge  that  the  alliance 
has  neither  been  abolished  nor  altered.    The  token 


212  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

alone  can  have  been  modified,  or  rather  absorbed 
into  a  new  token,  without  affecting  in  the  least 
the  covenant  itself. 

§  96.  The  Second  Covenant,  far  from  being 
Carnal,  is  eminently  Spiritual,  the  Promise  of 
Posterity  signed  through  Circumcision  having 
Reference  to  Christ.  —  The  attempt  has  been  made 
to  lower  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  in 
order  to  show  that  it  was  carnal,  its  sign,  circum- 
cision, has  been  pointed  to  as  implying  above  all 
a  promise  of  posterity  according  to  the  flesh,  and 
therefore  without  analogy  with  baptism.  The  objec- 
tion, it  must  be  confessed,  is  specious,  but  it  is  in 
reality  very  superficial,  and  does  not  bear  examina- 
tion. When  God  spoke  with  Abraham,  he  resorted 
to  the  language  used  and  understood  by  the  patri- 
archs ;  this  language  did  not  consist  only  of  Hebrew 
words,  but  also  of  the  symbolical  forms  then  in  use, 
and  which  in  the  East,  more  than  elsewhere,  are  the 
language  of  languages.  In  the  opinion  of  these 
times,  and  before  circumcision  was  introduced,  the 
sexual  organ  of  man  represented  both  himself  and 
his  family  and  his  posterity  in  a  figurative  sense. 
This  figure  was  so  literally  true,  that  it  was  more  a 
reality  than  a  figure.  An  alliance  covenanted  with 
the  head  of  a  family,  and  embracing  his  posterity, 
borrowed  in  the  solemnity  of  the  confirming  oath 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    213 

the  figure  in  use  amongst  the  people  of  the  East. 
When  Abraham  made  the  ruling  servant  of  his 
house,  who  was  to  survive  him,  swear  an  oath 
which  concerned  his  posterity,  he  resorted  to  this 
energetic  figure.  (G-en.  xxiv.  2,  3,  9.)  The  Lord 
borrowed  for  his  covenant  a  symbol  already  under- 
stood, established  and  practised  as  a  sign  of  alliance 
between  men,  introducing  only  a  slight  change  in 
the  mode.  He  could  not  possibly  have  selected 
then  a  sign  more  solemn,  more  eloquent,  or  better 
understood. 

The  covenant,  through  its  very  sign,  pointed  to 
posterity.  And  in  truth  the  children,  even  the  un- 
born ones,  were  bound  by  the  pledge  of  Abraham 
"  to  walk  before  God  and  to  be  perfect."  (Gen. 
xvii.  1.)  There  is  nothing  carnal  there,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  an  eminently  spiritual  covenant.  But, 
say  the  Baptists,  this  sign  referred  also  to  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  to  the  promise  of  the  birth  of  a  poster- 
ity, and  this  part  of  the  covenant  was  excessively 
carnal ;  such  a  covenant  cannot  concern  us.  Car- 
nal !  no  :  for,  says  St.  Paul,  "  this  seed  is  Christ." 
(Gal.  iii.  16.)  The  promise  of  a  Saviour  who  was 
to  come  in  the  flesh,  being  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
carnal ! !  And  the  sign  which  seals  this  promise  de- 
graded below  a  water-baptism,  because  it  does  not, 
like  that  rite,  refer  exclusively  to  justification  by 
faith,  but  implies  also  in  addition  the  promise  of  the 


214  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

birth  of  Christ !  Such  infatuation  does  not  deserve 
the  honor  of  any  further  notice,  and  we  take  leave 
of  it  here. 

§  97.  Circumcision  was  an  immense  Privi- 
lege, —  the  Spiritual  Bond  which  united  all  the 
Members  of  the  Family  to  God  and  to  one 
another.  —  Now,  was  circumcision  a  privilege,  or 
was  it  a  burden  of  the  law  ?  Such  a  question 
seems  almost  idle.  If  the  covenant  is  a  grace,  the 
seal  which  confirms  it  can  only  be  an  additional 
grace,  and  the  Jews  have  at  all  times  considered 
circumcision  as  an  immense  religious  privilege 
which  they  enjoyed  over  other  nations.  But  again, 
this  circumcision  which  was  granted  to  Abraham  as 
a  privilege,  as  a  special  act  of  favor,  was  it  such 
also  for  his  children  ?  We  shall  answer  through 
another  question.  Are  the  signature,  the  seal,  and 
the  oath,  which  confirm  a  future  inheritance  to  a 
child  still  a  minor,  of  no  advantage  to  him  ?  Cer- 
tainly the  child  has  an  immense  interest  at  stake  in 
the  transaction,  although  totally  unconscious  of  it. 
He  who  would  laugh  at  the  process,  and  turn  into 
ridicule  the  signature  made  for  a  minor  by  his  par- 
ent or  guardian,  asserting  that  all  proceedings  of  a 
nature  to  bind  should  be  stayed  until  the  child  can 
himself  sign,  would  decidedly  not  have  the  scoffers 
on  his  side,  and  would  very  soon  pass  for  insane. 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    215 

Let,  at  least,  the  same  practical  common-sense  be 
turned  to  what  belongs  to  the  covenants  of  the  Lord 
and  to  their  signs  ! 

The  circumcision  of  a  child  was  not  only  a  privi- 
lege to  him  ;  it  was  also  one  to  the  parent.  While 
the  latter  rejoiced  in  the  promise  of  the  Lord,  part 
of  his  joy  consisted  in  the  assurance  that  the  cove- 
nant was  a  religious  benefit  which  he  was  imparting 
to  his  posterity.  Just  as  worldly  riches  can  scarcely 
be  enjoyed  by  a  kind  parent  if  he  is  debarred  from 
handing  them  over  to  his  children,  and  the  right 
of  legacy  enhances  their  value,  just  so  was  it  part 
of  the  enjoyment  of  the  possession  of  the  covenant 
to  be  able  to  transmit  it  as  a  sacred  inheritance  to 
one's  family  and  whole  household.  By  circumcis- 
ing his  new-born  babe,  the  parent  was  closing  an 
alliance  with  the  Lord  for  the  benefit  of  the  child. 
The  latter  was  brought  up  in  that  covenant ;  as 
soon  as  he  began  to  think  and  to  speak,  they  incul- 
cated upon  him  that  he  belonged  to  the  Lord  ;  that 
his  father,  using  his  paternal  right,  had  bound  him 
to  that  holy  service  through  a  solemn  act,  and  that 
he  could  not  escape  the  obligation  as  long  as  under 
parental  authority.  If  afterwards  he  did  not  follow 
the  ways  of  the  Lord,  he  broke  the  covenant,  and  it 
was  his  own  doing.  If  he  persevered,  he  continued 
faithful  to  the  Lord,  and  proved  true  to  the  engage- 
ment entered  into  for  him  by  his  parents.     The 


216  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

parents,  on  their  side,  pledged  themselves  solemnly, 
through  the  ceremony,  to  bring  up  their  child  in  the 
fear  of  God,  to  make  him  observe  his  commands, 
and  to  compel  him  to  fulfil  all  the  obligations  of  the 
covenant.  This  rite,  through  its  consequences,  was 
an  immense  spiritual  blessing  for  both  parents  and 
children.  It  was  the  religious  bond  of  the  family, 
which  drew  together  all  its  members  to  God.  This 
consecration  of  each  individual  not  only  bound  him, 
but  implied  also  his  posterity.  Nor  should  it  be  im- 
agined, that  because  males  only  received  the  sign, 
females  were  excluded  from  the  covenant.  All  the 
seed  being  covenanted  in  reference  not  only  to  the 
present,  but  also  to  the  future,  and  whatever  was 
born,  male  or  female  being  that  consecrated  seed, 
belonged  by  this  very  fact  to  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord. 

&  98.  It  is  tantamount  to  denying  Scripture 
and  insulting:  God  to  assert  that  the  New 
Covenant  has  lessened  or  suppressed  the  Privi- 
leges of  the  Old  one  towards  any  Portion  of 
the  Family.  —  Circumcision  was  then  emphatically 
the  religious  institution  of  the  family.  A  spiritual 
ordinance,  the  pledge  of  the  Covenant,  the  symbol 
of  the  faithfulness  of  God,  it  proved  a  glorious 
privilege,  which  was  dear  to  the  heart  of  every 
father  and  mother  in  Israel.     But  now  comes  the 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    217 

New  Covenant,  and  it  brings  along  a  new  token. 
Then,  according  to  the  Baptists,  Woe  to  Israel  ! 
Woe  to  the  believers  !  Woe  to  their  children  !  A 
magnificent  privilege  of  God  is  going  to  be  torn 
from  them,  and  nothing  will  be  placed  in  its  stead. 
The  Lord,  if  we  are  to  trust  them,  is  going  to  break 
his  covenant  with  the  family,  and  henceforth  he 
will  enter  into  no  covenant  engagement  except  with 
adults  individually.  The  Christian  family  is  about 
to  be  degraded  below  the  Jewish  household,  and 
placed  on  a  level  with  the  pagan  family  !  God, 
who  had  promised  an  everlasting  covenant  to  the 
faithful  and  to  his  posterity,  is  going  to  lie,  to  with- 
draw completely  from  the  child  the  privileges  he 
had  conceded  to  him,  and  to  thus  lessen  also  those 
of  the  parent !  In  a  word,  they  make  the  Lord 
say  :  "  I  extend  hereafter  the  token  of  my  covenant 
upon  women,  but  I  take  it  away  from  children  ! " 
If  this  was  only  a  Baptist  fable,  it  would  be  bad 
enough,  but  it  is  really  an  insult  offered  to  God  ; 
it  is  denying  his  Word  ;  it  is  giving  the  lie  to  the 
Apostles,  who  have  assured  us  that  the  covenant 
contracted  with  Abraham  is  neither  broken  nor 
lessened,  and  that  now  as  ever  "  the  promise  is 
unto  us  and  to  our  children."  (Acts  ii.  39.)  The 
covenants  of  the  Lord  will  hold  good  until  the  end 
of  ages,  and  the  privileges   connected  with   them 

shall  never  be  lessened,  but  rather  extended.     It 
10 


218  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

is  evident  that,  if  the  Apostles  had  preached  the 
Baptist  doctrine,  and  refused  to  children  the  rite 
of  initiation  to  the  covenant,  the  Jews  would  have 
repelled  their  preaching,  and  would  have  been  right 
in  so  doing.  Such  was  their  attachment  to  circum- 
cision, that  the  Apostles  were  obliged  to  allow  its 
practice  to  continue  long  after  the  foundation  of 
the  Church,  that  Paul  had  to  circumcise  Timothy, 
and  that  Jewish  Christians  would  never  have  sur- 
rendered this  privilege,  if  baptism  had  not  offered 
to  them  a  full  equivalent. 

§  99.  A  Sign  of  Covenant  which  excludes  the 
Family  is  not  valid,  and  the  Baptism  of  a  Par- 
ent without  that  of  his  Children  is  incomplete 
and  of  no  Value.  —  Finally,  we  desire  to  draw 
attention  to  a  fact  of  the  highest  importance,  which 
seems  to  have  escaped  observation ;  namely,  that 
when  an  adult  was  being  circumcised,  the  circum- 
cision of  his  children,  if  he  had  any,  formed  an 
integral  and  indispensable  part  of  the  rite  of  his 
own  circumcision.  There  is  no  instance  of  a  father 
being  circumcised  without  his  children,  and  the 
father  who  would  have  neglected  to  have  his  sons 
circumcised  would  have  thus  impaired  his  own 
privilege  of  circumcision  ;  he  would  have  denied 
the  covenant  through  this  very  omission,  and  its 
sign  would  have  become  useless  to  him.     The  rea- 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND  THEIR   SIGNS.    219 

son  of  this  is  self-evident.  The  covenant  is  first 
contracted  with  the  parent,  and  not  with  the  child. 
"And  I  will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee."  (Gen.  xvii.  2.)  But  the  token  shall  be 
placed  upon  everything  that  belongs  to  the  family 
and  household  of  Abraham,  —  upon  Ishmael,  who 
is  excluded  from  the  best  promises,  and  even  upon 
the  servants,  who  are  not  heirs  to  them.  The  idea 
of  a  spiritual  covenant  corresponds,  therefore,  to 
that  of  a  political  alliance  between  an  inferior  chief 
and  a  sovereign,  through  which  the  chief  is  bound 
to  cause  the  treaty  to  be  respected  by  all  who  are 
subject  to  his  own  authority,  and  to  make  the 
colors  of  the  empire  float  over  all  his  dominions. 
But  if  the  chief  excepts  from  the  alliance  any  por- 
tion of  his  domain,  or  even  the  smallest  number 
of  his  subjects,  although  he  may  have  signed  the 
treaty,  the  sovereign  will  take  no  account  of  this 
signature ;  he  will  consider  it  as  being  of  no  avail. 
He  will  insist  that  the  alliance  embraces  the  whole 
household  of  the  chief,  without  exception,  and  every 
household  of  each  of  his  subjects.  It  will  be  neces- 
sary that  the  entire  population  subject  to  the  chief 
enter  into  the  alliance,  or  that  not  one  of  them 
enters  into  it,  and  this  alliance  will  bind  the  grown- 
up man  as  well  as  the  child  in  the  cradle,  and  even 
the  unborn  generation.  A  covenant  without  these 
conditions  is  not  a  covenant.     It  is  a  worthless  doc- 


220  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ument,  to  which  in  vain  are  attached  seal  and  sig- 
nature. Such,  however,  is  the  mutilated  covenant 
Baptists  would  persuade  us  that  we  have.  It  is  a 
nonentity.  God  cannot  accept  it ;  and  their  bap- 
tism, through  its  exclusion  of  infants,  becomes  in- 
valid. It  may  be  a  baptism,  but  it  is  not  the  bap- 
tism, the  seal  of  the  covenant,  any  more  than  was 
the  baptism  of  Pharisees.  It  is  just  as  if  Abraham 
had  circumcised  himself  alone,  and  had  refused  to 
circumcise  his  household,  for  some  plausible  reason. 
The  alliance  would  not  then  have  been  ratified 
between  him  and  the  Lord,  through  the  sole  fact 
that  his  circumcision,  having  been  made  exclusively 
personal  to  himself,  would  have  been  incomplete. 
However  sincere  his  love  of  God,  yet  his  loyalty 
would  have  been  outwardly  that  of  a  rebel.  This  is 
so  true,  that  whenever  a  stranger  was  having  him- 
self circumcised,  in  order  to  celebrate  the  Passover 
with  the  people,  it  was  not  granted  to  him,  —  that 
is  to  say,  he  was  not  considered  as  truly  circum- 
cised, —  unless  he  had  at  the  same  time  caused 
his  whole  household  to  be  circumcised  with  him. 
(Ex.  xii.  48.) 

§  100.  The  Anger  of  the  Lord  is  kindled 
against  the  Baptist  Practice  of  Moses.  —  This 
view  is  further  confirmed  by  a  very  remarkable 
fact.     Moses  seems  to  have  allowed  himself  to  be 


THE  NATURE   OF   COVENANTS  AND   THEIR   SIGNS.    221 

carried  away  for  a  while  with  Baptist  notions ;  he 
neglected  or  postponed  the  circumcision  of  his  chil- 
dren. We  know  too  well  the  eminence  of  his  relig- 
ious character  to  doubt  that  in  this  he  acted  with 
perfect  sincerity.  But,  however  sincere  his  error 
might  have  been,  God  was  extremely  displeased  ; 
he  saw  his  covenant  virtually  set  aside  ;  and  it  was 
not  on  the  son,  who  was  innocent,  but  upon  the 
father,  the  head  of  the  family,  that  he  resolved  to 
punish  this  neglect,  and  "  the  Lord  sought  to  kill 
him."  The  mother  was  what  we  call  in  modern 
times  a  rabid  Baptist ;  she  was  very  much  opposed 
to  the  child  receiving  circumcision,  and  became  very 
violent  and  abusive  when  her  husband  enforced  his 
paternal  authority  in  this  matter.  She  was,  how- 
ever, the  daughter  of  Jethro,  a  man  fearing  God 
and  a  priest ;  but  she  had  lived  amongst  the  Arabs, 
these  Baptists  of  the  desert,  who  never  circumcise 
before  the  age  of  thirteen,  that  at  which  Ishmael  re- 
ceived the  rite,  and  she  experienced  the  most  lively 
repugnance  to  allowing  her  son  to  be  circumcised. 
Probably  the  Baptist  rationalism,  which  taxes  with 
folly  the  putting  of  the  token  of  covenant  on  in- 
fants, had  taken  hold  of  the  mind  of  this  woman, 
and  Moses,  at  a  loss  to  answer  her  pungent  ar- 
guments, had  given  way  to  her  and  yielded  to  her 
objections.  Moses,  like  several  Evangelical  Chris- 
tians of  the  day,  must  have  thought  that  after  all 


222  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  thing  was  of  very  little  importance,  or  else  he 
would  not  have  thus  neglected  it.  But  the  wrath 
of  God  was  kindled  against  his  neglect,  however 
plausible,  and  he  imparted  to  him  a  severe  lesson, 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  consigned  to  the  pages 
of  Scripture  for  the  instruction  of  all  future  ages 
of  the  Church.     (Ex.  iv.  24-26.) 


CHAPTER    XI. 

THE  HISTORY   OF  THE   COVENANT  AND   OF  ITS   SIGN 
FROM  ABRAHAM  TO   CHRIST. 

§  101.  The  Circumcision  of  Ishmael  con- 
fers upon  lii  hi  none  but  Spiritual  Privileges. — 

The  principles  which  we  have  laid  down  upon  the 
nature  of  a  covenant  and  its  token,  are  amply  con- 
firmed in  the  Old  Testament,  for  there  is  no  trace 
in  this  Divine  record  of  a  single  alliance  contracted 
between  the  Lord  and  an  individual,  which  did  not 
include  also  the  infants  in  a  most  remarkable  man- 
ner. In  this  connection  let  us  pass  under  review 
some  facts  subsequent  to  the  instituting  of  the  cov- 
enant and  of  circumcision. 

Ishmael  when  adult  was  expelled  in  spite  of  his 
circumcision,  for  he  had  no  personal  claim  to  the 
covenant.  He  had  not  been  circumcised  for  his 
own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  his  parent,  Abraham, 
because  the  token  of  the  covenant  was  to  be  placed 
upon  every  member  of  the  household  or  upon  none. 
The  only  benefit  which  Ishmael  could  and  did  ob- 


224  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

tain  from  circumcision,  was  a  participation  in  the 
religious  discipline  of  the  family,  and  this  entirely 
spiritual  advantage  was  the  only  one  accruing  to 
him.  It  was  again  more  in  view  of  the  father  than 
of  the  child  that  God  ordered  Abraham  to  offer 
Isaac  as  a  sacrifice,  in  order  to  test  his  faithfulness 
to  the  covenant  through  an  act  of  obedience,  and 
thus  renew  and  confirm  it.  Therefore  God  said, 
"  Because  thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  I  will 
bless  thee."  This  feeling  of  Abraham,  this  "  not 
withholding  his  child  from  God,"  should  be  experi- 
enced by  every  Christian  parent  when  presenting 
his  infant  to  be  baptized. 

§  102.  Tlie  General  Profanation  of  the  Rite 
at  Sichem  was  never  used  as  an  Argument 
against  the  Institution.—  A  generation  has  scarcely 
passed  away  since  God  gave  to  Abraham  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  when  it  is  profaned  at  Sichem  by 
the  sons  of  Jacob,  and  its  spiritual  import  set  aside 
to  use  the  rite  as  a  mere  politico-religious  ceremony. 
(Gen.  xxxiv.)  Why  then  be  dismayed  if  baptism 
as  well  as  circumcision  was  very  early  corrupted, 
misunderstood,  and  turned  to  superstitious,  profane, 
or  even  political  use  !  The  faithful  of  those  days 
did  not,  however,  think  to  remedy  the  evil  by  spirit- 
ualizing circumcision,  and  remodelling  it  by  limita- 
tion to  adult  believers.    Moses  alone  tried  this  auda- 


THE   HISTORY  OF  THE   COVENANT  AND  ITS   SIGN.    225 

cious  and  faithless  scheme,  and   with  what  results 
is  known. 

§  103.  Children  and  Infants  compelled  to 
contract  the  Covenant.  —  That  unconscious  in- 
fants really  covenanted  with  the  Lord  through  their 
parents  when  circumcised,  is  confirmed  by  other 
instances.  When  the  Decalogue  is  promulgated 
upon  Sinai,  all  the  people,  as  we  have  seen,  includ- 
ing women  and  infants,  were  present,  and  were  also 
all  baptized.  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  par- 
ticipating in  the  nature  of  a  covenant,  was  extended 
from  the  head  of  the  family  to  every  member  of 
the  household.  Children  and  slaves  shall  not  be 
permitted  to  have  any  voice  in  the  matter,  this 
religious  practice  is  forced  upon  them,  they  shall 
observe  it  with  the  head  of  the  family  and  even 
against  their  consent.  (Ex.  xx.  10.)  When,  later, 
God  renews  his  covenant  with  Israel,  he  commands 
that  the  heads  of  families  shall  not  stand  alone  be- 
fore him,  but  that  their  wives  and  even  their  little 
ones  shall  appear  to  enter  into  covenant.  (Deut. 
xxix.  10  -  12.)  One  consequence  of  this  entering 
the  covenant  with  a  full  household  is  explained  a 
little  further  (xxxi.  11  - 13)  ;  namely,  that  when 
God's  law  shall  be  read  publicly  on  solemn  occa- 
sions, children  shall  be  present,  that  they  may  hear, 

and  that  they  may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  their  God. 
10*  o 


226  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

They  are  to  be  recognized  officially  as  disciples,  or, 
if  preferred,  as  apprentice  disciples.  The  children 
who  "  have  not  known  anything  shall  be  made  to 
hear,  and  thus  also  to  learn  to  fear  God,  and  to  do 
all  the  words  of  the  law."  Observe  that  they  are 
disciples  solely  by  the  will  and  act  of  their  fathers, 
and  in  no  sense  by  any  action  of  their  own. 

§  104.  Moses  does  not  prescribe  Circumcis- 
ion, but  only  enhances  its  Spirituality.  —  Cir- 
cumcision is  ordained  but  once  in  the  law  of  Moses 
(Lev.  xii.  3),  or,  rather,  is  not  ordained  at  all,  but 
receives  a  brief  passing  notice,  in  reference  to  an- 
other ordinance,  that  relating  to  the  uncleanness  of 
the  child's  parent.  This  shows  that  Moses  consid- 
ered the  ordinance  as  anterior  to  his  ministry,  and 
that  it  transcended  his  powers  as  lawgiver  either  to 
ordain  or  alter  aught  in  reference  to  an  everlasting 
covenant  and  its  token.  He  only  spiritualizes  it,  as 
the  Apostles  afterwards  spiritualize  the  new  seal  of 
the  covenant  in  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  "  Circumcise  the  foreskin  of  your  heart. 
And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thkie  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou 
may  est  live."     (Deut.  x.  16;  xxx.  6.) 

§  105.    Moses  inflicts  upon  the  People  Forty 


THE   HISTORY  OF  THE  COVENANT  AND   ITS   SIGN.    227 

Years  of  Baptist  Practice  as  a  Punishment 
for  Unfaithful  Parents.  —  While  in  the  desert, 
the  people  rebel  against  God,  and  break  the  Cov- 
enant. Then  circumcision  is  suppressed  during 
forty  years,  from  the  time  of  the  departure  from 
Egypt  until  the  arrival  in  Canaan  (Josh,  v.),  that 
is  to  say,  almost  from  the  moment  that  Moses  be- 
came the  spiritual  conductor  of  the  people,  until 
after  his  death.  No  one,  therefore,  was  circumcised 
under  the  ministry  of  Moses.  He  imposed  upon 
the  nation  for  the  space  of  forty  years  the  genuine 
Baptist  practice  of  withholding  from  infants  the 
token  of  the  Covenant.  But  this  was  a  sign  of 
the  wrath  of  the  Lord,  who  thus  was  withdrawing 
his  covenant  from  the  families  of  Israel.  Many  of 
these  uncircumcised  children  died  before  becoming 
of  age,  many  more  became  adult,  and,  although  they 
had  never  received  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  fell 
while  fighting  the  battles  of  the  Lord.  But  when, 
after  long  waiting,  heads  of  families  are  for  the  first 
time  circumcised  on  their  personal  profession  of 
faithfulness  to  the  Lord,  their  children  and  their 
infants  receive  also  with  them  the  token  of  the  cov- 
enant. Adults  are  then  circumcised,  each  with  his 
entire  household,  just  as,  later,  the  Apostles  never 
baptize  the  head  of  a  family  without  baptizing  all 
the  household  with  him.  Without  the  participation 
of  their  children  in  it,  the  token  of  the  covenant 


228  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

would  have  been  incomplete  to  the  parents  them- 
selves. 

Now,  to  whom  was  this  long  withholding  of  in- 
fant circumcision  a  chastisement  ?  To  the  chil- 
dren ?  No,  for  God  replaced,  by  wonders,  and  by 
a  strict  religious  discipline,  that  education  of  the 
covenant  which  their  fathers  had  proved  incompe- 
tent to  give  them.  Parents  alone  were  thereby 
chastised  ;  the  prohibition  from  circumcising  infants 
meant  that  the  parents  were  placed  outside  the  cov- 
enant, having  broken  it,  and  that  the  privilege  of  its 
sign  was  taken  from  them.  The  value  of  the  token 
they  had  received  was  impaired  by  their  not  being 
permitted  to  confer  it  upon  their  children.  This 
Baptist  practice  was  imposed  upon  them  as  a  pun- 
ishment, and  is  called  (Josh.  v.  9)  "the  reproach  of 
Egypt."  The  evangelical  minister  who  refuses  to 
baptize  the  child  presented  to  him  by  a  father  who 
is  unbelieving,  or  a  scoffer,  or  a  rebel  against  the 
Gospel,  only  follows  the  precedent  of  Moses,  and  is 
justified  by  Scripture.  The  child  must  be  pre- 
sented for  baptism  only  by  such  parent  as  has  not 
notoriously  broken  the  covenant  of  God. 

§  106.  Joshua  renews  the  Covenant  even  with 
Infants,  and  protests  against  the  Baptist  Prac- 
tice. Josiah  follovrs  his  Example.  —  Later,  on  a 
solemn  occasion,  Joshua  renews  the  covenant  with 


THE   HISTORY  OF  THE  COVENANT  AND   ITS   SIGN.    229 

all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  and  he  compels  them 
to  be  present,  "  all  the  women  and  the  little  ones, 
and  even  the  strangers "  ;  for,  free  or  bondsmen, 
with  or  without  understanding,  they  must  all  be 
bound  by  the  words  of  the  covenant,  —  it  concerns 
them  all.  (Josh.  viii.  35.)  Then  when  he  feels  his 
end  drawing  near,  Joshua  again  gathers  the  people 
together  to  urge  them  to  remain  faithful  to  the  cov- 
enant they  have  contracted  through  circumcision. 
"  Choose  you  whom  you  will  serve,"  says  he  to 
them,  "  but  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve 
the  Lord."  (xxiv.  15.)  Joshua  expresses  ener- 
getically by  these  words  the  paternal  authority  over 
the  family  in  religious  matters.  This  privilege,  or 
rather  this  responsibility,  has  never  been  abolished, 
although  under  the  benign  influence  of  the  Gospel 
the  woman  may  be  called  to  share  it  with  her  hus- 
band, provided  it  be  with  the  full  consent  of  the 
latter.  Baptists,  however,  teach  the  Christian  par- 
ent to  say,  "  As  for  me  I  will  serve  the  Lord,  and 
my  house  will  serve  whomsoever  they  choose  !  " 
We  admire  that  noble  resolution  of  Joshua,  by 
which  he  initiates  into  the  covenant,  and  binds  to 
it  his  household  by  virtue  of  parental  authority  ; 
but  the  heart  becomes  chilled  at  the  sight  of  this 
egotism,  this  spiritual  Pharisaism,  which  would  con- 
tract a  covenant  with  God  for  one's  self  alone,  and 
leave  the  family  outside  the  covenant  and  its  blessed 
privileges. 


230  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

When,  under  Josiah,  Israel  renews  the  covenant 
with  the  Lord,  children  and  infants  are,  as  ever,  in- 
cluded. In  these  solemn  times  of  repentance  and 
renovation,  which  correspond  to  our  religious  reviv- 
als, the  whole  people  gathered  by  households,  and 
the  meeting  included  "  all  the  people,  great  and 
small."  The  words  of  the  covenant  were  read 
aloud,  and  the  engagement  was  concluded  with  each 
and  every  member  of  the  family,  even  with  the  little 
ones,  who,  however  unconscious,  were  bound  by  a 
religious  tie,  through  the  act  of  their  parents.  (2 
Kings  xxiii.  2,  3  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  30,  31.)  Under 
Ezra,  on  the  contrary,  when  the  people  meet  only 
to  be  catechized,  or  to  conclude  some  private  alli- 
ance, adults  alone  are  required  to  be  present. 
(Neh.  viii.  2,  3  ;   x.  28.) 


CHAPTER    XII. 

BAPTISM  SUBSTITUTED   FOR  CIRCUMCISION. 

§  107.    Circumcision  is  practised  jointly  with 
Baptism  during  the  whole  Apostolical  Age.  —  The 

New  Covenant  is  introduced  by  John  the  Baptist, 
and  adopts  for  its  special  sign  a  rite  prophetically 
enjoined  by  Moses,  as  a  symbol  of  purification  from 
sin.  The  new  token  of  covenant  has  the  advan- 
tage over  circumcision  of  being,  from  its  nature, 
of  a  more  easy  and  also  of  a  more  extensive  appli- 
cation, inasmuch  as  both  sexes  can  receive  it.  But 
the  rite  is  slightly  modified  from  its  partial  Messi- 
anic fulfilment.  The  one  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ 
renders  all  other  sacrifices  superfluous,  and  the 
ashes  of  burnt-offering  will  no  longer  be  mixed 
with  the  water  of  baptism.  As  there  is  henceforth 
one  sacrifice,  there  shall  also  be  but  one  baptism, 
one  single  typical  washing  through  the  blood  of 
Christ,  which  need  not  be  repeated.  The  law  of 
Moses  has  then  come  to  an  end,  but  the  Old  Cove- 
nant  remains    standing   and    immovable,   for   God 


232  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

has  declared  it  everlasting.  Nor  is  its  token  sup- 
pressed, but  disciples  will  be  both  circumcised  and 
baptized.  Twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  all  the 
Christians  of  the  model  church  in  that  city  were 
still  circumcising  their  children,  and  it  is  then 
only  that,  with  great  painfc,  and  after  much  hesi- 
tancy, Paul  obtains  an  apostolical  decision  which 
renders  the  practice  of  circumcision  optional  for 
Gentiles,  even  after  their  baptism.  It  is  decided 
then,  for  the  first  time,  that  the  practice  shall  not 
be  obligatory  in  the  Church ;  but  it  continues  to 
receive  the  sanction  of  the  Apostles,  and  even 
Paul,  who  made  least  of  it,  long  afterwards  cir- 
cumcises his  spiritual  son,  Timothy.  Finally,  the 
practice  continues  more  or  less  in  the  Church  as 
far  as  the  historical  accounts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment carry  us.  As  soon  after  this  as  ecclesiastical 
history  supplies  us  with  reliable  information,  we 
find  for  the  first  time  the  circumcision  of  children 
entirely  suppressed,  and  generally  replaced  by  their 
baptism.  The  Abyssinians,  however,  have  retained 
circumcision  with  baptism  up  to  the  present  day, 
and  practise  both  on  the  same  person,  on  the 
ground  of  conformity  with  the  Saviour,  —  a  prac- 
tice for  which  they  can  scarcely  be  blamed  if  bap- 
tism does  not  belong  to  all  who  had  a  right  to- 
circumcision. 


BAPTISM  SUBSTITUTED  FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       233 

§  108.    The  Old  Bridge  and  the  New  Bridge, 
with  the  Apocryphal  Sign-board  of  the  Baptists. 

—  Such  is  the  history  of  circumcision  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  not  suppressed  by  any  divine 
order,  it  exists  for  a  long  time  side  by  side  with 
baptism,  it  is  acknowledged  by  the  Apostles,  and 
both  signs  are  practised.  It  is  only  by  and  by,  as 
a  work  of  time,  that  circumcision  falls  into  disuse, 
and  that  baptism  becomes  fully  substituted.  The 
concomitant  existence  of  these  two  tokens  of  the 
covenant  will  be  best  understood  by  means  of  a 
comparison.  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  similar  to 
a  land  of  blessing,  separated  by  a  river  from  an 
accursed  region.  A  bridge  of  wood  has  been  con- 
structed in  order  to  lead  over  to  the  blessed  land. 
This  bridge  is  circumcision,  it  is  narrow  and  diffi- 
cult, and  moreover  it  is  reserved  for  the  exclusive 
use  of  a  privileged  race.  In  the  course  of  time, 
the  Lord,  mercifully  anxious  to  facilitate  the  ap- 
proach to  his  kingdom,  orders  a  new  bridge  of 
stone  to  be  constructed,  much  larger  than  the  first, 
and  of  much  easier  access.  He  does  not  make 
this  bridge  the  exclusive  privilege  of  any  race,  but 
he  invites  "  all  nations "  to  pass  over  it,  without 
making  the  slightest  restriction  whatever.  But  he 
does  not  destroy  the  old  bridge,  he  allows  it  to 
stay  until,  obsolete  and  antiquated,  it  may  fall  of 
itself,  and  become  gradually  impracticable.     For  a 


234  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

time,  therefore,  people  will  pass  over  both  bridges ; 
but  when  the  old  one  is  abandoned,  they  will  have 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  new,  which  answers  all 
purposes.  Thus  far  Baptists  may  perhaps  agree 
with  us,  but  further  we  disagree.  First  they  deny 
that  the  new  bridge  has  taken  the  place  of  the  old, 
because  there  is  not  a  Scriptural  sign-board,  for- 
mally saying,  "  Pass  this  way  all  of  you  who  would 
have  passed  over  the  old  bridge !  "  As  for  us,  we 
believe  that  it  does  not  show  a  sufficient  sense  of 
propriety  and  respect  to  exact  from  the  Master  of 
the  kingdom  such  a  superfluity  ;  the  fact  that  there 
is  no  better  bridge  is  quite  sufficient,  without  any 
special  inscription. 

Not  content  with  this,  the  Baptists  have  presumed 
to  place  at  the  head  of  the  bridge  their  own  sign- 
board. "  The  nations  shall  not  pass  here  !  Adults 
alone  shall  pass,  but  not  their  children !  "  They 
want  to  exclude  from  the  new  bridge  a  part  of 
those  who  had  a  right  to  the  old.  Now  we  say  that 
this  inscription  is  not  of  God,  is  not  from  the  Mas- 
ter of  the  bridge,  and  that  therefore  it  should  be 
held  of  no  account.  We  go  beyond,  and  we  say 
that  it  is  positively  false,  and  against  the  will  of  the 
Master,  that  the  new  bridge  should  have  curtailed 
the  privileges  attached  to  the  old ;  but  that,  on  the 
contrary,  these  have  been  enlarged,  and  that  if  for- 
merly parents  passed  with  their  children  into  the 


BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED   FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       235 

Covenant,  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  now  to  separate 
them,  and  to  compel  the  children  to  remain  behind 
in  the  company  of  hardened  heathen.  We  say 
finally,  that,  if  God  had  introduced  such  restric- 
tions, the  old  bridge  would  be  far  preferable  to  the 
new  ;  that  it  is  incomprehensible  it  should  have 
been  allowed  to  fall  into  disuse,  and  that  we  must 
resort  to  it  again,  as  we  have  the  right  to  do.  In  a 
word,  let  us  have  circumcision  again,  if  we  cannot 
baptize  our  children  ! 

It  is  with  this  just  as  with  the  institutions  of  Sab- 
bath and  Sunday.  Both  days  were  observed  side 
by  side  in  the  Church,  until  the  Sabbath,  without 
being  formally  abrogated,  fell  into  disuse,  and  was 
superseded  by  Sunday.  A  great  deal,  however,  that 
is  plausible  and  Scriptural  can  be  said  to  show  that 
the  Lord's  day  is  quite  a  different  institution  from 
the  Sabbath.  A  strong  argument  can  also  be  con- 
structed in  proof  that  there  is  no  instance  in  the 
New  Testament  of  the  Lord's  day  being  sanctified 
by  any  but  believers,  and  that  therefore  children, 
servants,  and  the  unconverted  must  be  allowed 
freely  to  desecrate  a  day  wWch  does  not  concern 
them.  Indeed,  a  doctrine  of  "  The  Lord's  day  for 
believers  only,"  could  easily  be  shaped  into  a  much 
more  plausible  system  than  that  of  "  Baptism  for  be- 
lievers only."  But  suppose  the  attempt  once  made, 
and  the  heart  and  the  practical  sense  of  over  nine 


236  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

tenths  of  Evangelical  Christians  would  hold  that  it  is 
better  to  return  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  if  not,  to 
transfer  to  the  Christian  Sunday  all  the  obligations 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Thus  have  also  the  immense 
majority  of  Evangelical  Christians  ever  felt  in  refer- 
ence to  baptism  and  circumcision,  and  they  repre- 
sent, to  say  the  least,  the  general  feeling  and  the 
common  sense  of  Christendom.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Seventh-day  Baptists  is  only  the  logic  of  Ana- 
baptism  applied  to  the  Sabbath,  and  these  are  cer- 
tainly the  most  consistent  of  all  Baptists. 

§  109.    Baptism    is    neither    greater    nor   less 

than  Circumcision.  —  All  that  the  comparison  of 
the  two  bridges  implies  on  the  relation  of  baptism  to 
circumcision  agrees  in  every  respect  with  Scripture, 
as  we  shall  presently  better  see.  First  of  all,  the 
two  signs  are  equal  in  value.  Baptism  is  not  more 
than  circumcision,  for  then  the  brethren  in  Jeru- 
salem would  not  have  retained  the  latter  so  tena- 
ciously, and  endeavored  to  impose  it  upon  Gentiles, 
as  if  their  baptism  was  insufficient  to  introduce 
them  into  the  covenant.  Nor  is  baptism  less  than 
circumcision ;  for  were  this  the  case,  the  Church 
would  never  have  given  up  the  latter,  and.would 
have  claimed  her  apostolical  right  to  practise  it. 
Baptism  being,  therefore,  as  a  sign  or  token,  neither 
more  nor  less  than  circumcision,  is  certainly  equal 
to  it  in  value. 


BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED  FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       237 

§  110.  The  Identity  of  Circumcision  and  Bap- 
tism deelared  in  Scripture.  —  The  identity  of 
the  two  rites  is  otherwise  very  evident.  It  results 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  covenants  and  their 
signs,  and  we  have  already  established  it.  Let  us 
now  add  some  formal  declarations  of  Scripture. 
Paul  expressly  declares  in  the  following  passage 
that  we  are  circumcised  by  baptism  :  "  In  whom 
also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  buried 
with  him  in  baptism."  (Col.  ii.  11, 12.)  Grammar 
compels  us  to  connect  the  last  participle,  "  buried," 
with  the  preceding  simple  tense  as  an  explicative, 
and  we  read  therefore,  "  In  whom  you  are  circum- 
cised, by  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism."  It  is 
true  that  reference  is  here  made  to  spiritual  circum- 
cision and  spiritual  baptism  ;  but  to  concede  that 
in  their  spiritual  meaning  these  two  figures  are 
identical,  is  to  concede  that,  in  their  highest  bearing, 
the  one  is  the  equivalent  of  the  other,  and  that 
when  the  first  has  ceased,  the  second  must  have 
taken  its  place.  If,  with  Baptists,  and  for  the  sake 
of  immersion,  a  water-baptism  is  seen  in  this  pas- 
sage, then  the  identity  will  be  stronger  still,  since  it 
would  apply  even  to  the  external  ceremony. 

Circumcision  is  called  "  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith."     (Rom.  iv.  11.)     There  is  nothing 


238  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

said  more  elevated  than  this  in  reference  to  bap- 
tism, which  cannot  therefore  be  more  spiritual  than 
circumcision.  That  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  was  placed  formerly,  by  order  of  God,  upon 
infants,  and  circumcision  cannot  and  ought  not  to 
cease,  without  this  spiritual  seal  being  continued  to 
them  under  some  new  form  ;  but  there  is  no  other 
than  baptism.  Baptism,  therefore,  takes  the  place 
of  circumcision,  and  is  the  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith  upon  infants,  as  well  as  upon  adults.  There 
is  nothing  new  here ;  the  novelty  would  be  if  the 
seal  were  withdrawn  from  infants,  and  for  this, 
clear  and  special  orders  would  be  required.  Only 
on  these  terms  is  baptism  practicable  as  the  sign 
of  the  New  Covenant  and  the  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  Without  these  terms,  baptism  would 
not  only  be  extremely  inferior  to  circumcision,  but 
it  would  not  be  a  sign  of  covenant,  it  would  be 
nothing  and  worth  nothing.  Baptist  books  here 
take  pains  to  show  that  Abraham  received  circum- 
cision only  after  faith,  and  that  for  this  reason  only 
is  the  rite  called  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
Nobody  will  doubt  this,  but  it  is  equally  certain 
that  the  seal  of  the  justifying  faith  of  the  parent 
was  henceforth,  by  order  of  God,  placed  upon  in- 
fants. From  the  Baptist  point  of  view,  it  was  un- 
doubtedly a  very  great  impropriety  thus  to  impart 
the  seal  of  justifying  faith  to  infants ;  but  God  knew, 


BAPTISM  SUBSTITUTED   FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       239 

we  trust,  what  lie  was  doing,  and  there  is  not  a  word 
under  the  New  Covenant  to  indicate  that  he  re- 
pented of  this  impropriety,  or  made  any  alteration 
in  regard  to  it.  It  is,  therefore,  now  as  ever,  the 
will  of  God  that  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  under  one  form  or  another  be  still  placed 
upon  the  children  of  believers.  No  covenant  is 
visibly  ratified  with  the  parents  themselves  except 
at  this  cost.  He  who  denies  the  sign  of  the  cove- 
nant to  his  children,  places  himself  with  them  out- 
side. 

§  111.  The  Children  of  a  Christian  Parent 
being  declared  Holy,  should  receive  the  Sign 
of  Holiness.  —  Circumcision  was  given  only  to 
such  children  as  were  holy  through  the  circum- 
stance of  their  birth  ;  that  is  to  say,  born  of  cir- 
cumcised or  believing  parents.  (Luke  ii.  23.) 
Under  the  New  Covenant,  the  children  of  a  Chris- 
tian parent  are  also  holy.  Paul,  writing  to  the 
saints  of  the  church  in  Corinth,  tells  them :  "  The 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband : 
else  were  your  children  unclean ;  but  now  are  they 
holy."  (1  Cor.  vii.  14.)  The  word  employed  here 
in  the  original  is  saint,  the  very  same  which  is 
applied  to  the  parents  and  to  the  members  of  the 
church  of  Corinth  in  the  second  verse  of  the  first 


240  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

chapter  of  the  same  epistle.  The  believers  are 
saints,  and  their  infants  are  also  saints ;  so  says 
the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  or  rather  the  Word 
of  God.  Baptists  have  made  a  great  many  far- 
fetched hypotheses  in  order  to  explain  away  this 
holiness  of  believers'  infants,  which  absolutely  can- 
not be  reconciled  with  their  system.  Let  them 
give  whatever  ingenious  explanation  they  like 
about  the  nature  of  this  holiness,  it  matters  not. 
They  cannot  alter  the  fact  established  by  the  Apos- 
tle, that  the  children  of  a  Christian  parent  are 
saints,  and  that  this  holiness,  whatever  it  may  be, 
is  not  possessed  by  the  children  of  the  unbeliever. 
This  is  more  than  enough  to  show  that  under  the 
New  Covenant,  as  under  the  former  one,  children 
are  a  privileged  class,  holy  just  as  their  believing 
parents  are  themselves  holy,  and  that  therefore 
they  are  entitled  with  them  to  the  token  of  tiie 
Covenant.  Holy  or  saint  means  separated,  set 
apart  from  the  world.  "  Holiness  belongeth  unto 
the  Lord";  and  since  it  has  pleased  him  to  im- 
part it  to  our  children,  there  is  a  manifest  impiety 
in  refusing  to  acknowledge  it,  and  in  placing  our 
children  in  the  same  class  with  unbelievers  and 
heathen.  There  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  manifest 
obedience  to  God,  in  consecrating  our  children  to 
his  service  by  baptism. 


BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED   FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       241 

§  112.  The  Identity  of  the  two  Institutions 
proved  by  the  Identity  of  their  essential  Fea- 
tures. —  Circumcision  and  baptism  differ  merely 
as  to  the  form,  but  they  have  all  their  symbolical 
and  spiritual  features  in  common.  They  are  both : 
1st.  The  sign  or  token  of  a  covenant ;  2d.  A  rite 
of  initiation  ;  3d.  A  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith ;  4th.  The  symbol  of  an  internal  change  ; 
5th.  They  are  conferred  upon  holy  infants  ;  6th. 
given  but  once  to  the  same  individual ;  7th.  They 
neither  save  nor  change  the  heart,  but  form  only 
an  external  people  of  the  called  ;  8th.  They  both 
imply  a  solemn  promise  towards  God.  (1  Pet.  iii. 
21.)  All  these  common  features  make  them  vir- 
tually the  same  religious  institution,  with  only  a 
modification  in  the  external  form,  which  is  a  mat- 
ter of  little  importance.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  not 
given  any  directions  in  regard  to  baptism ;  he  has 
not  fixed  any  special  age  for  its  reception,  because 
the  New  Covenant  implies  a  greater  freedom  than 
the  old,  and  because  it  was  necessary  that  the  new 
sign  should  be  liberated  from  all  legal  obstruc- 
tion. Baptists  alone  have  invented  such,  and  seek 
to  place  us  again  under  a  law  of  their  own,  having 
put  themselves  in  place  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  fix  an 
age  at  which  baptism  can  be  received,  and  an  age 
at  which  it  is  forbidden  to  impart  it.     But  this  is 

purely  a  human  invention,  without  any  weight,  God 
n  p 


242  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

having  nowhere,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  fixed 
an  age  for  the  reception  of  baptism,  or  excluded 
infants  from  the  rite. 

§  113.  Twenty  Years  after  the  Death  of  Christ 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem  decides  for  the  first 
time  that  Baptism  will  he  held  sufficient  with- 
out Circumcision.  —  The  primitive  Church  toler- 
ated circumcision  within  its  bosom,  and  here  is 
what  passed  in  reference  to  this  practice.  Some 
members  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  came  down 
to  Antioch,  where  there  was  a  church  composed 
of  converted  and  baptized  Gentiles,  and  they 
"  taught  the  brethren,  and  said,  Except  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be 
saved."  (Acts  xv.  1.)  These  Christian  teachers 
from  Judaea,  it  seems,  placed  baptism  much  below 
circumcision,  and  did  not  hold  it  sufficient  as  a 
sign  of  covenant.  They  were  therefore  at  the 
antipodes  of  Baptists,  who  exalt  baptism  above 
circumcision.  The  question  might  have  been  con- 
sidered settled  long  ago  in  the  Church,  for  tins 
happened  twenty  years  after  its  foundation  ;  but 
not  at  all ;  they  contend  in  Antioch  about  the 
necessity  of  the  rite,  and  cannot  agree.  The  au- 
thority of  Paul  and  Barnabas  is  insufficient  to 
cause  the  claims  of  baptism  to  be  respected.  It 
is  decided  at  last  to  refer  the  case  to  the  parent 


BAPTISM  SUBSTITUTED  FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       243 

church  iii  Jerusalem ;  but  in  this  cradle  of  Chris-  • 
tianity  the  question  is  still  vague  and  unsettled  ; 
they  must  meet  and  discuss.  Those  who  insisted 
upon  circumcision  were  brethren  who  had  once 
belonged  to  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  but  had 
believed,  and  they  maintained,  in  reference  to  the 
Gentile  converts  of  Antioch,  "  It  is  needful  to 
circumcise  them."  (ver.  8.)  For  the  rest,  it  will 
be  remembered  that  circumcision  always  included 
the  whole  family,  both  adults  and  children.  One 
might  expect  that  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  would 
forbid  them  to  be  circumcised.  Not  in  the  least! 
It  leaves  them  perfectly  free  in  this  respect,  and 
merely  forbids  (ver.  19)  that  they  should  be  trou- 
bled by  urging  this  rite  upon  them,  and  writes  to 
them  only  to  abstain,  out  of  regard  to  the  feelings 
of  the  Jews,  from  some  defilements  prohibited  in 
the  law  of  Moses.  Although  baptism  is  not  men- 
tioned here,  the  decision  of  the  Council  came  vir- 
tually to  this  :  "  Considering  that  you  have  been 
baptized,  circumcision  is  supererogatory ;  you  can 
lay  aside  the  practice,  without  being  troubled  as 
to  consequences." 

§  114.  Circumcision  remains  optional  for  bap- 
tized Gentiles.  —  Later  still,  when  the  Galatians 
were  worked  upon  by  Judaizing  brethren  who  in- 
sisted upon  circumcising  them  and  making  them 


244  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

keep  the  law  of  Moses,  the  circumcision  of  heathen 
began  to  be  the  rallying  point  of  a  Pharisaic  fac- 
tion, and  Paul  opposed  himself  energetically  to  the 
circumcision  of  Gentiles,  saying  to  them,  "  I  tes- 
tify to  every  man  that  is  circumcised,  that  he  is  a 
debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  (Gal.  v.  3.)  These 
words  appear  in  startling  contradiction  with  those 
of  Rom.  iv.  and  Gal.  hi.,  where  Paul  shows  on  the 
contrary  that  circumcision  is  the  token  of  faith, 
exterior  to  the  law  and  independent  of  it.  The 
contradiction  vanishes,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
those  against  whom  Paul  testifies  are  baptized 
Christians.  If,  after  their  baptism,  they  make  it 
a  case  of  conscience  and  of  necessity  still  to  re- 
ceive circumcision,  they  declare  by  this  very  act 
that  they  do  not  hold  their  baptism  to  be  suffi- 
cient, and  in  denying  the  sign  of  the  New  Cove- 
nant they  deny  the  Covenant  itself.  They  place 
themselves  again  by  their  circumcision  under  the 
law  of  Moses,  which  preceded  both  baptism  and 
the  Covenant  of  Jesus  Christ.  All  this  is  very 
simple. 

After  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  however,  Paul 
circumcised  Timothy,  who  had  been  a  heathen. 
Certainly  he  could  never  have  done  so,  if  circum- 
cision was  absolutely  forbidden  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Neither  would  he  have  done  it,  had  he  thought 
that  he  was  thus   obliging  Timothy  to  keep  the 


BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED  FOR   CIRCUMCISION.       245 

whole  law  of  Moses.  He  did  it,  therefore,  because 
circumcision  was  permitted  to  the  Christian,  and 
he  opposed  the  practice  only  when  it  was  made  a 
symbol  of  party  and  sect,  only  when  it  was  con- 
nected with  an  idea  of  opposition  to  baptism  and 
to  the  New  Covenant,  and  when,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Pharisees,  the  attempt  was  made  thereby 
to  bind  consciences  to  the  law  of  Moses. 

§  115.  All  the  Children  of  Church-members 
were  necessarily  either  Circumcised  or  Bap- 
tized.—  This  perfect  freedom  in  reference  to  cir- 
cumcision, and  the  exceptional  circumstances  un- 
der which  alone  Paul  opposed  it,  are  fully  evi- 
denced by  the  accusations  brought  against  the 
Apostle  on  this  very  point.  "  Thou  seest,  brother, 
how  many  thousands  of  Jews  there  are  which  be- 
lieve ;  and  they  are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou 
teachest  all  the  Jews  which  are  amongst  the  Gen- 
tiles, that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  chil- 
dren," etc.  (Acts  xxi.  21.^  The  accusation  is 
false  (ver.  24) :  "  That  all  may  know  that  those 
things,  whereof  they  were  informed  concerning 
thee,  are  nothing."  The  Jewish  brethren  are  thus 
maintained  by  the  Apostles  in  the  privilege  of  cir- 
cumcising their  children,  and  no  interference  with 
this  freedom  will  be  tolerated,  although  the  Apos- 
tles surely  know  that  the   practice  is  destined  to 


246  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

gradual  extinction.  At  the  same  time,  Gen- 
tiles are  written  to  that  they  need  not  observe  it, 
which  means  that  the  baptism  they  have  received 
is  sufficient.  They  are  not  forbidden,  however,  to 
circumcise  their  children,  but  only  declared  free 
from  those  who  would  force  the  practice  upon 
them.  There  were,  therefore,  in  the  Christian 
Church  two  classes  of  children.  Those  upon 
whom  the  sign  of  the  Covenant  had  been  con- 
ferred by  circumcision,  and  those  to  whom  it  had 
been  imparted  by  baptism.  Thus  there  was  some 
equality  and  community  of  religious  privileges  be- 
tween those  children.  But,  if  we  are  to  admit  with 
Baptists  that  no  infant  baptism  took  place,  it  fol- 
lows that  in  every  Apostolic  church,  that  of  Corinth 
for  instance,  there  were  two  distinct  and  unequal 
classes  of  children,  —  those  who  were  within  the 
covenant  of  God  and  had  its  token,  circumcision, 
and  those  who,  being  uncircumcised  and  also  unbap- 
tized,  were  outside  of  the  Covenant,  and  had  not  re- 
ceived any  of  its  signs.  Here  is,  therefore,  a  secta- 
rian religious  division  in  the  midst  of  this  Christian 
youth.  The  "  holy  "  children  of  this  brother,  who 
will  not  even  come  in  contact  with  the  denied  chil- 
dren of  that  brother.  The  children  of  the  Cove- 
nant, belonging  with  their  parents  to  the  household 
of  God,  and  the  uncovenanted  children,  ranked 
contemptuously  with  a  heathen  world.    These  make 


BAPTISM   SUBSTITUTED   FOE   CIRCUMCISION.       247 

two  youthful  castes,  who  can  never  associate  to- 
gether, and  will  grow  up  in  mutual  hatred !  One 
must  be  remarkably  credulous,  to  imagine  that 
Baptist  principles  could  have  existed  in  the  days 
of  the  Apostles.  The  converted  heathen  would 
have  had  no  alternative  left  to  them  but  to  circum- 
cise their  children,  against  the  advice  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  else  to  create  a  schism  and  form  a  separate 
church.  But  the  Baptist  schism  is  a  modern  de- 
velopment, it  did  not  exist  then. 

§  116.  Infant  Baptism  was  indispensable  to 
the  Unity  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  The  Baptist 
Practice  would  have  put  out  Baptism  and  per- 
petuated Circumcision.  —  Infant  baptism  was  the 
only  thing  which  could  gradually  reconcile  this  dif- 
ference of  practice,  and  bring  external  unity  to  the 
Church.  No  one  can  ever  make  us  believe  that  a 
family  of  Christian  Jews  would  have  surrendered 
the  highly  valued  privilege  of  circumcision  con- 
ceded to  them  by  the  Apostles,  except  for  a  full 
equivalent  in  behalf  of  their  children.  Baptist  prin- 
ciples would  unavoidably  have  brought  about  the 
gradual  absorption  of  the  rite  of  baptism  into  that 
of  circumcision,  instead  of  circumcision  being  super- 
seded by  baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Apostles, 
who  always  spared  the  feelings  of  the  Jews,  and 
respected  their  religious  privileges,  did  not  deem  it 


248  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

expedient  to  issue  a  special  order  for  infant  bap- 
tism, nor  to  urge  its  practice.  It  would  have  been 
a  premature  step,  and  they  would  have  caused 
themselves  to  be  looked  upon  by  converted  Jews  as 
the  enemies  of  circumcision,  by  pressing  the  substi- 
tution of  an  equivalent.  They  left  baptism  to  its 
natural  development,  and  gave  up  to  the  influence 
of  time  and  of  the  Spirit  of  God  the  care  of  harmo- 
nizing in  the  Church  the  Hellenic  and  Judaical 
elements.  They  knew  that,  sooner  or  later,  baptism 
would  prevail  exclusively  as  the  only  sign  of  cov- 
enant with  God  ;  but  they  also  knew  perfectly  that 
the  circumcision  of  infants  would  never  be  surren- 
dered, unless  immediately  replaced  by  infant  bap- 
tism. The  latter  practice  was  therefore  insured 
without  the  need  of  any  special  injunction.  There- 
fore, also,  the  oldest  records  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory show  it  as  generally  established,  and  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  beginning  with  the  oldest, 
such  as  Justin  Martyr,  state  positively  that  it  has 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision.  Not  until  two 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  when  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostles  had  already  lost  much  of  its  purity,  do 
we  find  the  Baptist  practice  beginning  to  develop 
itself  as  a  fruit  of  superstition,  and  as  the  result  of 
the  sacramental  remission  of  sins,  in  a  word,  the 
opus  operatum. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED. 

§  117.    All  the  Baptismal  Evidence  of  Scrip- 
ture converges  towards  Infant  Baptism.  —  All 

the  Scriptural  paths  that  lead  towards  baptism 
having  been  investigated,  most  of  the  facts,  doc- 
trines, and  analogies  which  bear  on  the  subject, 
whether  in  the  Old  or  in  the  New  Testament, 
having  undergone  a  rigid  examination,  we  have 
reached  everywhere  the  same  conclusion,  —  the 
baptism  of  infants.  Everywhere  we  have  had  to 
recognize  that  Baptist  principles  were  not  only 
groundless,  but  stood  even  in  flagrant  contradic- 
tion to  the  Bible,  and  we  have  not  been  able  to 
discover  one  solid  argument  in  their  behalf.  The 
principal  results  already  reached  in  support  of 
infant  baptism  are  the  following :  —  1st.  Baptism 
always  given  before  justifying  faith  ;  2d.  The  bap- 
tisms of  the  Old  Testament  conferred  upon  infants ; 
3d.  The  whole   people,  with  women  and  children, 

baptized  before  Sinai  ;   4th.  The  covenant  of  faith 
11* 


250  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

concluded  with  Abraham  has  never  been  repealed, 
and  subsists  still ;  5th.  It  belongs  to  the  very  na- 
ture of  a  sign  of  covenant,  that  the  entire  house- 
hold should  receive  it ;  6th.  The  sign  which  the 
parent  denies  to  his  family  becomes  thereby  inval- 
idated to  himself;  7th.  In  the  commission  given 
to  the  Apostles,  Jesus  Christ  commands  infant 
baptism  exactly  as  much  as  adult  baptism  ;  8th. 
Baptism  takes  the  place  of  circumcision,  has  the 
same  symbolical  meaning,  and  is  bound  to  the 
same  rule  ;  9th.  The  children  of  a  Christian  par- 
ent are  holy,  and  set  apart  from  the  world,  under 
the  New  just  as  under  the  Old  Covenant ;  10th. 
They  inherit  the  promises  of  the  Covenant  with 
adults ;  11th.  The  Christian  Church  recognized  the 
privilege  of  the  circumcision  of  infants,  until  this 
rite  was  gradually  replaced  by  baptism ;  12th.  God, 
in  granting  a  New  Covenant,  has  not  abridged,  but 
extended,  the  privileges  of  the  Old. 

§  118.  The  great  Sophism,  that  because  In- 
fants cannot  believe,  they  must  not  he  Bap- 
tized, brought  under  the  Test  of  Logic.  —  To  all 

these  already  superabundant  proofs,  we  are  now 
about  to  add  a  few  more,  of  a  different  kind.  But 
before  proceeding,  let  us  inquire,  Where  are  the 
facts  and  proofs  of  Baptists  ?  They  want  to  pro- 
hibit the  baptism  of  infants,  but  where  in  Scrip- 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  251 

ture  is  a  formal  interdiction  ?  Neither  John  the 
Baptist,  nor  Jesus  Christ,  nor  the  Apostles  have 
uttered  a  single  word  against  infant  baptism.  And 
yet  the  token  of  the  Covenant  having  thus  far  been 
always  placed  upon  infants,  a  counter-order,  to  say 
the  least,  was  indispensable. 

Baptists  have  not  a  single  Scriptural  fact  to  bring 
against  this  ancient  privilege,  which  is  traced  as 
far  back  as  to  the  Father  of  believers.  What,  then, 
have  they?  One  proof,  —  yes,  a  single  proof,  and 
a  far-fetched  one,  —  which  after  all  is  no  proof  at 
all,  but  only  a  great  rationalistic  sophism.  It  is 
this  :  Baptism  is  to  be  imparted  only  after  faith  ; 
children  have  not  faith,  therefore  they  cannot  be 
baptized.  The  premises,  as  we  have  seen,  are  false, 
for  the  Apostles  have  baptized  again  and  again  be- 
fore faith ;  but  the  reasoning  on  these  false  premises 
will  prove  no  better.  Here  is  the  same  argument 
again,  under  another  favorite  form.  It  is  written, 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  "  ; 
therefore  one  must  believe  before  he  can  be  bap- 
tized, and  infants,  being  unable  to  believe,  ought 
not  to  be  baptized.  Here  again  the  premises  are 
false,  for  this  passage  speaks  of  the  baptism  that 
saves,  namely,  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Let  us, 
however,  for  a  moment  concede  these  premises,  in 
order  to  test  what  Baptist  logic  is  worth,  and  take 
up  the  reasoning  again.     Since  the  Baptists  are  de- 


252  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

termined  to  conclude  against  infant  baptism  from 
the  above  passage,  let  us  at  least  have  the  whole  of 
it,  and  not  a  garbled  quotation.  "  He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned."  (Mark  xvi.  16,  17.)  Now 
let  us  follow  the  Baptists  and  conclude  with  them 
in  their  own  logic  :  "  Infants  do  not  believe,  they 
shall  not  be  baptized ;  infants  do  not  believe,  they 
shall  all  be  damned  !  "  What  a  comforting  belief 
for  the  heart  of  a  parent  is  the  Baptist  doctrine 
and  its  inflexible  logic  !  But  fortunately  the  Gospel 
does  not  damn  infants  ;  far  from  this,  it  says  that 
for  such  as  resemble  them  is  the  kingdom  of  heav- 
en ;  and  evidently  the  whole  passage  in  question 
has  not  the  most  distant  reference  to  infants.  But 
if  it  had,  dying  infants  must  undoubtedly  all  be 
damned. 

Let  us  apply  another  test  to  the  Baptist  argu- 
ment :  "  He  who  does  not  believe  should  not  be 
baptized  ;  infants,  therefore,  not  believing,  should 
not  be  baptized."  Now,  let  us  apply  the  very  same 
logic  to  a  passage  perfectly  analogous  in  its  form. 
Scripture  says,  "  This  we  commanded  you,  that 
if  any  would  not  work,  neither  should  he  eat." 
(2  Thess.  iii.  10.)  Infants  will  not  work,  neither 
shall  they  eat,  so  commands  Scripture.  Here  is 
Baptist  logic  in  its  exactness,  neither  more  nor 
less.     It  is  pure  sophistry.     There  is  just  as  much 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  253 

Biblical  proof  for  denying  infants  food,  and  thus 
starving  them,  as  for  denying  them  baptism.  There 
would  be  even  more ;  for  Scripture  at  least  has 
never  said  or  implied  that  believers  alone  should 
receive  the  water  of  baptism,  but  it  declares  very 
positively  that  he  who  will  not  work,  neither  shall 
he  eat.  Here  our  opponents  will  probably  exclaim: 
"  It  is  understood  as  a  matter  of  course  that  infants 
cannot  be  included  in  that  command  to  work  ;  their 
fathers  are  held  to  be  working  instead  of  them, 
and  thus  insure  them  the  right  to  eat !  "  We  are 
agreed ;  but  pray,  why  should  you  have  two  weights 
and  two  measures  ?  To  be  just,  acknowledge  also 
that  if  Scripture  had  positively  commanded  to  bap- 
tize only  those  who  believe  (which,  however,  it  has 
not),  this  restriction  could  refer  only  to  such  as  are 
competent  to  believe,  and  not  in  the  least  to  in- 
fants, who  cannot.  It  is  quite  sufficient  that  their 
parents  should  believe,  to  admit  infants  to  the  ex- 
ternal privileges  resulting  from  faith,  just  as  they 
are  allowed  to  eat  because  their  parents  work  for 
them.  Scripture  has  denied  to  them  neither  food 
nor  baptism  ;  but  if  it  has  forbidden  the  one,  it  has 
also  the  other. 

After  having  exposed  in  its  nakedness  this  soph- 
ism, the  only  argument  of  Baptists,  let  us  revert 
to  facts  ;  and  in  order  to  neglect  nothing  impor- 
tant in  the  support  of  our  cause,  let  us  cumulate 
additional  proofs  for  infant  baptism. 


254  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

§  119.    One  Million  of  Children  baptized  with 
the  Water  of  the  Red  Sea  by  the  Lord  himself. 

—  The  Gospels  relate  to  us  that  John  the  Baptist 
baptized  crowds,  whole  populations, — in  a  word,  all 
the  people.  (Luke  iii.  21.)  Must  we  believe  that 
amongst  all  the  people,  and  amidst  such  wholesale 
baptisms,  there  were  no  children,  not  even  one 
child  !  It  is  for  the  Baptists  to  show  that,  when 
all  the  people  set  forth  for  the  desert  to  attend 
John's  preaching,  they  left  all  their  children  at 
home,  or  at  least  that  John  excluded  them,  and, 
indeed,  every  one  of  them,  from  the  national  rite. 
Until  such  an  exception  is  clearly  made  out,  it 
will  be  safe  to  take  the  most  obvious  meaning 
of  Scripture,  and  to  admit  that  there  were  some 
children  amongst  "  all  the  people,"  and  that  there 
was  at  least  one  infant  "  in  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judaea,  and  all  the  region  about  Jordan,"  which 
class  it  is  declared  were  baptized.  (Matt.  iii.  5.) 
In  the  mean  time,  Saint  Paul  "  will  not  that  we 
should  be  ignorant  that  our  fathers  were  all  bap- 
tized unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
(1  Cor.  x.  2.)  We  would  like  to  be  told  whether, 
when  the  fathers  were  sprinkled  with  the  dew  of 
the  cloud  or  with  the  foam  of  the  surge  at  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  their  children  and  infants 
were  with  them  or  not  ?  The  fact  is,  that  there 
were  on  these  occasions  no  less  than  a  million  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM  CONFIRMED.         255 

children  baptized  by  the  hand  of  God,  and  who 
were  baptized  in  company  with  their  parents, — 
baptized  just  as  much  and  after  the  same  fashion. 
These  Israelites  never  dreamed  of  the  Baptist  no- 
tion of  leaving  their  infants  behind  them  on  the 
Egyptian  side  of  the  Red  Sea.  They  knew  per- 
fectly that  God  would  not  perform  the  baptism 
of  the  parents  without  that  of  the  children. 

Although  all  were  baptized,  God  did  not  take 
pleasure  in  most  of  them.  The  baptism  God  gave 
them  was  in  no  way  different  from  the  multitu- 
dinous baptism  of  the  present  nations  of  Christen- 
dom. But  the  subsequent  unfaithfulness  of  the 
people  did  not  alter  the  fact  that  God  had  baptized 
them  all.  Nor  does,  now-a-days,  the  unfaithfulness 
of  our  Christian  masses  show  anything  against  the 
validity  of  the  baptism  they  may  have  received  in 
childhood.  And  "  these  things  "  adds  the  Apostle, 
"  were  our  examples,  and  they  are  written  for  our 
admonition  "  (ver.  6,  11).  This  is  an  example,  a 
type,  and  an  admonition  to  us  that  we  should  not 
think  too  much  of  our  baptism.  Paul  says,  "  They 
were  all  baptized,  but  with  many  of  them  God  was 
not  well  pleased  "  (ver.  2-5).  In  order  to  escape 
from  these  conclusions,  the  attempt  shall  perhaps 
be  made  to  spiritualize  the  whole  passage.  But  the 
Apostle  here  does  not  spiritualize  ;  on  the  contrary, 
he  takes  up  very  positive  facts  in  the  history  of  the 


256  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

Jewish  nation,  and  recognizes  in  the  very  material 
circumstance  of  the  sprinkling  through  the  clond 
and  the  sea,  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  the  baptism 
of  water.  If  the  baptism  of  which  he  speaks  here 
is  not  that  of  water,  what  is  it  ?  That  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  Certainly  not ;  for  God  rejected  most  of 
these  baptized  ones.  It  is  therefore  a  real  baptism 
of  water  which  God  conferred  upon  the  fathers  and 
also  upon  a  million  of  their  children. 

§  120.  The  Laying  on  of  Hands,  conferred  by 
the  Lord  upon  Little  Children,  implies  much 
more  than  Baptism.  —  We  have  already  seen  that 
the  children  of  Christians  are  placed,  by  formal 
declarations  of  Scripture,  in  the  same  position  to- 
wards the  Covenant  as  Jewish  children  formerly 
were.  They  are  declared  holy,  and  the  promise 
belongs  to  them  also.  "  For  the  promise  is  unto 
you  and  to  your  children,"  says  the  Apostle  Peter 
(Acts  ii.  39),  which  is  equivalent  to  saying :  "  Your 
children  participate  in  the  Covenant  just  as  much 
as  you."  Now,  how  has  Jesus  dealt  with  infants  ? 
Has  he  excluded  them  from  his  covenant  ?  Far 
from  it ;  he  has  granted  them  infinitely  more  than  a 
baptism  of  water.  He  has  conferred  upon  them  a 
special  blessing  ;  he  has  publicly  laid  his  hands  upon 
them.  He  has  thus  placed  them  higher  than  ever 
did  the  old  covenant,  so  much  so  that  the  Jews,  and 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  257 

even  his  own  disciples,  were  scandalized.  Let  us 
bring  the  scene  distinctly  before  our  minds.  Some 
believing  parents,  who  had  the  utmost  confidence  in 
Jesus  Christ,  want  to  present  to  him  their  little  chil- 
dren. These  were  infants  (jraiSta^  carried  in  the 
arms.  In  their  unbelief,  the  disciples  repel  them. 
Moved  by  a  true  Baptist  sentiment,  by  a  rationalism 
natural  to  the  heart  of  man,  they  say  to  each  other : 
"  What  is  the  use  of  performing  a  solemn  act  upon 
infants  ?  "  But  Jesus  rebukes  them  :  "  Suffer  little 
children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  come  unto  me ; 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  (Matt.  xix. 
13,  14.)  Then,  not  content  with  this  reproof,  he 
crushes  the  Baptist  view  arising  in  the  hearts  of  his 
disciples  by  a  solemn  act,  which  is  a  stronger  pro- 
test than  any  words  could  be.  He  takes  to  him 
the  infants,  he  blesses  them,  and  lays  his  hands  on 
them.  And  later,  when  his  disciples  are  more  en- 
lightened, when  they  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  administer  the  Church,  they  place  that  cere- 
mony of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  which  their  Mas- 
ter had  conferred  upon  infants,  far  above  baptism, 
which  will  serve  as  a  step  to  it.  Only  after  dis- 
ciples have  been  first  baptized  will  hands  be  laid 
upon  them  to  confer  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In 
fact,  after  Philip  has  baptized  the  people  of  Samaria, 
two  Apostles  must  come  down  from  Jerusalem  on 
purpose  to  lay  hands  upon  these  baptized  ones,  that 


258  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  is  to  say, 
in  order  to  confer  upon  them  a  higher  degree  than 
baptism  had  bestowed.  And  yet  this  laying  on  of 
hands,  although  superior  to  baptism,  is  of  less  value 
coming  from  the  Apostles  than  when  administered 
by  the  Son  of  God.  He  who  had  left  water  baptism 
entirely  to  his  disciples,  as  a  ministry  inferior  to 
his,  does  not  hesitate  himself  to  confer  a  sign  of  a 
superior  and  more  spiritual  order,  namely,  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,  and  it  is  to  little  children  that  he 
gives  it.  After  this,  will  it  be  thought  honoring 
the  Lord  and  following  in  his  footsteps  to  reprove 
those  who  present  him  their  little  children  for  bap- 
tism ?  The  greater  always  implies  the  less,  and 
the  laying  on  of  hands  implies  baptism  and  much 
more  than  baptism.  The  laying  on  of  hands  is 
granted  only  to  baptized  disciples  ;  Jesus,  therefore, 
considered  these  little  children  as  disciples,  on  ac- 
count of  their  believing  parents,  on  account  of  their 
own  circumcision,  and  perhaps  also  on  account  of 
a  baptism  already  received  in  company  with  their 
parents.  Therefore  "  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
of  such  as  these  little  children,"  which  implies 
that  these  infants  already  belonged  to  the  kingdom, 
for  of  such  means  they  and  those  like  them,  as  in 
1  Cor.  v.  11;  1  Tim.  vi.  5. 

§  121.    A  great  Baptist  Miracle !     There  was 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  259 

not  a  single  little  Child  in  all  the  Families 
baptized  in  the  Days  of  the  Apostles.  —  Finally, 
we  reach,  in  reference  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  a 
last  class  of  facts.  These  are  household  baptisms. 
Although  not  numerous,  they  form  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  accounts  of  baptism.  Thus,  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  have  ten  distinct  cases  of 
baptism.  Two  only  of  these  are  baptisms  of  indi- 
viduals in  a  state  of  celibacy,  namely,  those  of  Paul 
and  the  eunuch,  who  had  no  family,  and  were  bap- 
tized in  the  most  private  manner,  without  so  much 
as  a  witness.  Four  are  multitudinous  baptisms  of 
crowds  ;  namely,  of  the  three  thousand,  the  Samari- 
tans, certain  disciples  of  John,  and  the  Corinthians. 
Then  four  more  baptisms  are  those  of  family  or 
household ;  namely,  those  of  Cornelius,  Lydia,  the 
jailer  of  Philippi,  and  Crispus.  To  these  four  bap- 
tisms of  families  in  the  Acts  must  be  added  that  of 
the  household  of  Stephanus,  mentioned  by  Paul  in 
1  Cor.  i.  16.  Finally,  there  are  three  more  families 
whose  baptism  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  but  is 
implied,  for  there  are  Christian  households  to  which 
the  Apostle  sends  salutations  ;  namely,  the  houses 
of  Onesiphorus,  Aristobulus,  and  Narcissus. 

All  these  household  baptisms  have  in  common 
the  characteristic  feature  that  they  take  place  im- 
mediately and  in  great  haste  on  the  first  assent 
given  to  the  Gospel  by  the  head  of  the  house  ;  and 


260  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

in  this  particular  they  are  the  exact  counterparts 
of  the  circumcision  of  Abraham  with  his  household. 
In  the  account  of  one  of  these  baptisms,  that  of  the 
keeper  of  the  prison,  the  translation  has  misled 
many  to  think  that  he  believed  with  all  his  house, 
while  the  original  says  merely  that  he  rejoiced  with 
all  his  house,  having  believed.  There  is  no  mention 
whatever  made  of  the  faith  of  his  house,  but  only  of 
his  joy  amidst  the  family.  It  would  be,  indeed, 
rather  unaccountable,  if  all  the  members  of  his 
family  believed,  that  he  alone  of  so  many  believers 
is  reported  to  have  rejoiced.  But  if  they  were  bap- 
tized because  he  believed,  it  is  natural  they  should 
joyfully  participate  in  the  feast  that  followed  his 
baptism.  Moreover,  the  original  has,  for  "  with  all 
his  house,"  but  a  single  word,  which  is  an  adverb, 
iravoiiu,  the  exact  meaning  of  which  is  by  the  house- 
ful. Now,  justifying  faith  is  too  personal  and  too 
spiritual  a  thing  for  it  to  be  said  of  any  man  that, 
during  the  brief  space  of  part  of  one  night,  he  re- 
pented by  the  houseful,  believed  by  the  houseful, 
was  converted  by  the  houseful,  and  was  saved  by 
the  houseful.  But  this  expression  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture with  perfect  propriety  in  reference  to  the  bap- 
tism of  a  man,  because  baptism  is  far  below  justify- 
ing faith,  and  is  the  external  token  of  the  Christian 
family,  imparted  to  children  without  requiring  even 
their  consent.     The  jailer,  having  believed,  passed 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  2G1 

rapidly  from  anxiety  to  confidence.  He  felt  happy, 
prepared  the  table,  and  sat  down  to  meat  with  the 
Apostles  and  with  his  family,  all  rejoicing  together, 
although  he  alone  had  believed.    (Acts  xvi.  33,  34.) 

The  Greek  word  Oikos,  employed  by  the  Apostles 
to  designate  the  households  that  were  baptized,  is 
one  the  meaning  of  which  is  perfectly  ascertained 
in  the  Septuagint,  that  guide  to  the  religious  lan- 
guage of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  It 
means  a  family  which  contains  little  children,  and 
here  is  an  instance  in  point.  "  The  house  of  Jacob, 
which  came  into  Egypt  were  threescore  and  ten," 
and  elsewhere,  the  "  households  of  his  sons "  are 
reported  to  have  included  "  their  little  ones  and 
their  wives."  (Gen.  xlv.  18,  19  ;  xlvi.  27.)  There- 
fore, if  there  is  any  value  to  be  set  on  the  words  of 
sacred  writers,  what  the  Apostles  baptized,  when 
baptizing  a  household,  was  a  man  with  his  wife  and 
his  little  ones.  To  this  must  be  added  the  impor- 
tant fact,  that  there  is  not  in  Scripture  a  single  in- 
stance of  the  head  of  a  family  having  been  baptized 
without  his  household.  The  only  two  solitary  bap- 
tisms are  those  of  bachelors,  Paul  and  the  eunuch, 
made  in  private,  and  all  the  others  are  baptisms  of 
households  or  crowds. 

Now,  in  the  face  of  such  strong  facts,  the  Bap- 
tists assert  that  there  were  no  children  in  any  of 
those  households  or  families  or  crowds  baptized  by 


262  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  Apostles,  —  no,  not  even  one  single  little  child ! 
But  fortunately  a  mere  assertion  is  no  proof,  espe- 
cially when  it  seems  as  incredible  as  it  is  ridiculous. 
What  queer  households  these  first  Christian  families 
must  have  been  !  How  barren  !  Not  one  child  in 
the  family  of  Cornelius,  nor  in  that  of  Lydia,  nor  in 
that  of  the  jailer  of  Philippi ;  amongst  "  all  his  " 
who  are  baptized,  not  one  child  !  There  is,  again, 
the  same  desolation  in  the  family  of  Crispus ;  then, 
also,  in  that  of  Stephanus,  and  in  those  of  Aristo- 
bulus,  Onesiphorus,  and  Narcissus  !  Of  whom  was 
composed  the  family  of  that  poor  Lydia,  who  must 
have  been  a  widow  because  she  was  the  head  of  her 
house  ?  She  has  no  husband,  no  children,  and  yet 
she  has  a  family  to  follow  her  obediently  through 
baptism  !  All  this  is  decidedly  so  incredible  that  it 
must  be  considered  on  a  par  with  the  miracles  of 
the  Breviary.  How  credulous  one  must  be  to  re- 
main a  Baptist ! ! 

We  have  attempted  to  estimate  the  probability 
that  there  were  no  little  children  in  these  baptized 
households,  and,  after  making  the  most  liberal  allow- 
ance to  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  here  is  the  result. 
We  find,  that,  out  of  four  families  or  houses  in  an 
ordinary  population,  there  are  three  at  least  with  a 
child  below  seven  years  of  age,  and  under  that  age 
Baptists  would  surely  not  baptize.  If,  then,  the 
Apostles  had  baptized  but  one  household,  the  proba- 


INFANT  BAPTISM  CONFIRMED.        263 

bility  that  there  would  have  been  at  least  one  child 
in  that  family  is  as  3  to  1.  Taking  two  households 
into  account,  this  probability  is  as  7  to  1.  With 
five  households  it  would  be  as  19  to  1 ;  and  with 
eight  households  as  31  to  1.  The  Pedobaptist  opin- 
ion has,  therefore,  in  reference  to  these  household 
baptisms,  just  thirty-one  times  more  probability  than 
the  Baptist  view.  Such  a  probability  is  equivalent 
to  a  certainty.  It  alone  would  suffice  to  justify  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  But  add  to  it  the  mil- 
lion of  children  baptized  at  the  passing  through  the 
Red  Sea,  without  speaking  of  the  mass  baptisms  of 
the  people  under  the  Gospel,  and  then  the  certainty 
of  infant  baptism,  simply  as  a  matter  of  fact  and 
independently  of  all  command,  doctrine,  analogy,  or 
opinion  whatever,  becomes  an  absolute  certainty. 

§  122.    Some    Indiscreet  Questions   addressed 

to  Baptists.  —  Having  drawn  our  conclusions  in 
relation  to  the  baptism  of  infants,  we  wish  we  could 
question  the  Baptist  reader,  and  ask  him  whether 
our  proofs  satisfy  him  or  not,  and  what  more  he  can 
desire.  Perhaps  he  will  attempt  a  last  stand  with- 
in the  following  intrenchment :  I  want  for  infant 
baptism  a  special  command  or  a  special  example  ; 
without  this,  all  other  considerations  will  fail  to 
convince  me.  Very  well ;  but  two  can  play  at  that 
game,  and  you  will  please  allow  us  to  exact  from 


264  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

you  the  same  condition  which  you  exact  from  us. 
We  ask  you,  therefore,  in  our  turn,  for  a  special 
command  against  baptizing  children,  or  at  least  for 
one  instance  of  their  being  excluded  from  this  rite 
by  the  Apostles.  Show  us  in  Scripture  a  single 
case  of  a  parent  baptized  without  his  children  ! 
You  cannot  bring  forward  a  single  word  of  prohibi- 
tion or  a  single  instance  of  exclusion.  We  are 
thus  quits ;  your  objection  is  neutralized,  and  there- 
fore of  no  avail. 

You  will  further  allow  us  to  address  to  you  -a  few 
indiscreet  questions.  Where  is  the  command  to 
baptize  women  ?  There  is  none  ;  but  there  are  two 
instances  of  such  baptism,  and  this  suffices  you. 
To  us,  the  example  of  so  many  more  households 
baptized  is  also  quite  sufficient.  Where  do  you 
find  a  single  command  or  a  single  instance  that 
women  should  participate  in  the  Holy  Supper  ?  You 
impart  it  to  them,  however,  on  the  strength  of  some 
considerations,  some  proofs  of  an  order  very  infe- 
rior to  those  we  have  adduced  for  infant  baptism. 
Where  do  you  find  a  single  command,  or  a  single 
declaration,  or  a  single  instance  to  the  effect  that 
Sabbath  has  been  transferred  from  the  last  day  of 
the  week  to  the  first  ?  For  the  fact  that  the  Lord 
rose  on  that  day,  and  that  church  meetings  were 
held  also  on  that  day,  proves  nothing  for  a  Sabbath 
observance.    You  insist,  however,  that  the  day  shall 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  265 

be  observed,  and  you  do  right ;  but  you  base  its 
sanction  on  proofs  very  much  weaker  than  those  of 
infant  baptism.  Whence  do  you  draw  your  rule,  on 
which  all  your  church  discipline  rests,  that  the  com- 
munion must  be  granted  only  to  such  as  are  bap- 
tized ?  The  New  Testament  contains  neither  com- 
mand nor  example  in  reference  to  this.  The  Old 
Testament  alone  has  a  rule,  that  one  must  be  cir- 
cumcised in  order  to  eat  the  Passover.  Why  do 
you  apply  the  rule  of  circumcision  to  baptism, 
since  you  deny  their  relation  ?  And,  again,  where 
do  you  find,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  command 
that  a  man  should  have  but  one  wife  ?  You  are 
satisfied  with  Scriptural  reasons  against  polygamy 
very  inferior  to  those  we  have  presented  you  in 
behalf  of  Pedobaptism.  Mormons  are  far  more 
consistent  than  you,  or  rather  they  are  the  only 
consistent  Baptists,  for  they  not  only  immerse  their 
followers  upon  a  profession  of  faith,  but  on  the  same 
principle  they  practise  polygamy  and  do  not  observe 
the  Christian  Sabbath.  According  to  your  logic 
and  your  own  principles,  they  are  right  and  you  are 
wrong.  Since,  without  formal  command  or  special 
example,  you  acknowledge  so  many  things  as  rules 
of  Scripture,  binding  on  the  conscience  of  the  Chris- 
tian, we  urge  you  to  be,  if  not  consistent  and 
logical,  at  least  simply  honest,  and  not  again  assert 

that,  unless  there  be  a  formal  and  special  command, 
12 


266  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

children  ought  not  to  bo  baptized.  But  we  have 
the  command  of  Jesus  Christ  to  baptize  nations ; 
and  the  command  which  contains  the  whole  con- 
tains also  each  part.  You  know  that  a  nation  is 
not  a  nation  without  the  children  ;  and  yet  you 
make  an  arbitrary  exception  to  the  command.  The 
Bible  does  not  make  it.  You  follow  the  example 
of  the  priests  of  Rome  when  they  take  away  the  cup 
from  laymen.  Their  exception  is  at  least  as  well 
grounded  as  yours.  But  we  cannot  conscientiously 
accept  your  authority  as  worth  more  against  the 
Bible  than  that  of  the  priests  of  Rome. 

§  123.  In  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  elsewhere, 
the  Naturalization  of  a  Parent  always  includes 
that  of  the  Children.  —  It  is  objected,  that,  if  the 
baptism  of  infants  is  to  be  practised,  it  is  singular 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  have  made  no  special 
mention  of  it.  It  is  at  least  just  as  singular,  that, 
if  women  are  to  take  the  communion,  the  Holy 
Ghost  should  have  made  no  special  mention  of  it, 
considering  that  Jesus  Christ  had  given  it  only 
to  males.  It  may  seem  singular  to  some  minds, 
that  all  the  members  of  a  family  should  enter  the 
house  through  one  door,  and  that  there  should 
not  be  upon  the  street  a  special  little  door  for 
the  children.  But  to  us  it  will  appear  still  more 
singular  to   refuse  entrance   to   children,  because 


ENFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  267 

the  door  through  which  the  adults  pass  first  is 
too  big  for  little  ones.  Such  superfluities  as  are 
d  email  de  d  would  be  a  blemish  in  the  Word  of 
God.  Romanists  might  as  well  except  from  the 
reach  of  the  second  command  their  idolatrous 
worship  of  the  infant  Jesus,  because  there  is  no 
special  command  against  worshipping  children  or 
their  graven  images.  We  have  under  our  eyes 
the  naturalization  papers  of  a  British  subject,  the 
head  of  a  family.  The  document  is  long,  goes 
into  details,  and  is  enacted  according  to  the  most 
strict  legal  form,  and  yet  it  does  not  contain  a 
word  about  the  wife  and  children  of  the  natural- 
ized father.  According  to  Baptist  logic  he  alone 
is  British,  while  his  wife  and  children  still  remain 
foreigners  ;  but,  according  to  the  logic  of  common- 
sense  and  experience,  the  whole  family  is  natu- 
ralized. The  little  children  have  not  given  a  per- 
sonal assent ;  they  have  not  even  been  consulted. 
But  they  are  subjects  of  the  queen  ;  they  have 
entered  into  covenant  with  her  through  the  act 
of  their  father.  They  are  bound  by  their  parent 
to  be  British  subjects  when  adults,  just  as  if  they 
had  themselves  applied  for  naturalization.  They 
may  then  refuse  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  em- 
pire ;  but  in  doing  so  they  will  be  rebels,  for  their 
father  has  naturalized  them.  If  they  ever  claim 
their  right  of  British  subjects,  because   made   so 


268  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

by  their  father,  nobody  will  dispute  the  claim,  or 
exact  a  new  act  of  naturalization.  The  baptism 
of  infants  is  just  as  clear  and  simple,  just  as 
much  a  matter  of  necessity,  as  the  naturalization 
of  infants  with  their  father.  It  is  not  even  easy 
to  conceive  how  a  father  can  be  naturalized  into 
the  visible  and  external  kingdom  of  God  on  earth, 
and  yet  leave  his  children  outside.  In  the  Chris- 
tian as  well  as  in  the  political  kingdom  the  natu- 
ralization of  a  man  must  be  invalidated  by  the 
very  fact  of  his  excepting  his  children  ;  for  his 
loyalty  must  be  too  partial  to  be  recognized.  He 
may  mingle  with  the  other  subjects  of  the  king- 
dom, and  apparently  enjoy  all  their  privileges,  but 
the  legal  document  of  his  loyalty  may  all  the  time 
be  wanting,  and  his  children  be  sooner  or  later 
called  to  suffer  for  the  neglect.  If  justifying  faith 
is  not  needed  for  baptism,  but  only  an  external 
assent  to  the  claims  of  the  Christian  religion,  the 
parent  is  perfectly  competent  to  give  that  assent 
for  his  child,  and  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the 
latter,  as  well  as  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  it 
should  be  done. 

§  124.  Infants  did  not  eat  the  Passover  any 
more  than  they  now  participate  in  the  Com- 
munion, and  these  two  Institutions  correspond 
to  each  other  just  as  Baptism  and  Circumcision. 


INFANT  BAPTISM  CONFIKMED.  269 

—  The  time  has  now  come  to  take  up  a  specious 
objection  often  made  against  infant  baptism.  It  is 
said  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  formal  prohibition, 
the  communion  might  be  given  to  infants  as  well 
as  baptism,  and  that  it  is  an  inconsistency  on  the 
part  of  Pedobaptists  not  to  do  so  ;  for  if  baptism 
has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  so  has  the 
Lord's  Supper  taken  that  of  the  Passover,  which 
latter  the  children  used  to  eat  with  their  parents. 
We  fully  admit  that  the  Lord's  Supper  corresponds 
to  the  Passover,  for  "  Christ  is  our  Passover,"  says 
Scripture.  And  the  primitive  Church  for  a  con- 
siderable time  observed  the  Passover  as  well  as 
the  Lord's  Supper,  just  as  circumcision  was  re- 
tained by  the  side  of  baptism.  It  was  only  after 
the  lapse  of  time  that  the  two  signs  of  the  Old 
Covenant  fell  into  disuse,  and  were  replaced  by 
the  corresponding  signs  of  the  New.  But  we  ut- 
terly deny  that  infants  ate  the  Passover,  although 
almost  every  Baptist  work  makes  the  assertion.  It 
is  true  that  children  participated  in  it ;  but  what 
children  ?  Children  who  questioned,  who  argued, 
and  who  received  religious  instruction  from  the 
head  of  the  family  (Exodus  xii.  26,  27-;  xiii.  8,  9, 
14)  ;  children  who  obeyed  the  commands  of  God, 
for  no  other  were  permitted  to  eat  the  Passover ; 
children  who  were  capable  of  having  their  loins 
girded,  their  shoes  on  their  feet,  and  their  staff  in 


270  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

their  hand,  and  who  could  sit  up  all  night  thus 
equipped  and  in  a  state  of  watchfulness  (xii.  11). 
All  Evangelical  churches  will  give  the  communion 
to  such  children.  Let  us  add,  that  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  a  commemoration,  —  that  is  to  say,  a  remem- 
brance of  the  past,  a  remembrance  of  the  death  of 
Christ  for  such  as  have  already  experienced  the 
effects  of  it,  and  have  already  known  their  Mas- 
ter ;  this  alone  excludes  infants  and  little  ones 
through  sheer  incapacity  of  participating  in  this 
remembrance.  Circumcision  and  baptism,  on  the 
contrary,  refer  both  to  the  future  ;  it  is  the  en- 
trance into  a  covenant  of  promises  which  are  not 
yet  realized.  The  Passover  and  the  Holy  Supper 
both  refer  to  the  past,  as  the  remembrance  of  an 
accomplished  fact ;  namely,  the  exodus  from  Egypt 
and  the  salvation  through  the  blood  of  the  Lamb. 
Baptists  have  failed  to  see  the  magnificent  arrange- 
ment by  which  the  two  sacraments,  first  under  the 
Old  then  under  the  New  Covenant,  complete  each 
other,  mutually  fit  and  answer  to  one  another  as 
the  two  symbolic  halves  of  one  religion,  the  one 
pointing  to  the  future  and  the  other  to  the  past. 
They  have  flattened  down  this  divine  structure  ; 
they  have  rendered  insipid  the  spiritual  and  rela- 
tive meaning  of  baptism  and  the  Holy  Supper,  by 
binding  both  to  the  past  and  to  the  same  fact, 
the   death  of .  Christ.      And  they  have  added  to 


INFANT   BAPTISM   CONFIRMED.  271 

their  spurious  baptism  the  stamp  of  absurdity,  by- 
asserting  that  a  whole  ignorant  people  was  buried 
by  baptism  witli  Jesus  Christ,  years  before  the 
Saviour  died,  and  before  his  nearest  disciples  had 
even  understood  that  he  was  to  die  and  be  buried 
for  the  redemption  of  their  sins. 

But  these  remarks  lead  us  to  a  closer  investiga- 
tion of  the  innermost  spiritual  meaning  of  baptism, 
and  to  this  the  next  chapter  will  be  devoted. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM. 

§  125.  Vagueness,  Diversity,  and  Contradic- 
tions amongst  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists, 
as  to  the  Spiritual  Value  of  Baptism.  —  What 
is  the  use  of  baptism  ?  "What  is  it  worth  ?  "What 
grace  does  it  impart  ?  What  is  the  risk  in  dispens- 
ing with  it  ?  In  a  word,  what  is  its  religions  value  ? 
It  seems  as  if  the  answer  to  this  question  should 
have  been  the  first  point  considered  in  this  work, 
and  that  it  is  necessary  to  know  first  what  a  cere- 
mony is  worth  before  undertaking  long  investiga- 
tions concerning  it.  But  the  importance  attached 
to  the  subject  was  sufficiently  justified  from  the  first 
by  the  sad  contentions  it  has  caused ;  and  one  re- 
sult of  our  investigations  is  the  power  correctly  to 
determine  its  precise  worth  in  a  Biblical  point  of 
view. 

Unfortunately  great  vagueness  prevails  as  to  the 
religious  value  of  baptism,  and  it  is  under  the  cover 
of  this  misty  vagueness  that  a  great  variety  of  opin- 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   273 

ions  have  arisen,  which  testify  to  the  general  uncer- 
tainty on  this  subject.  Quakers  altogether  reject 
the  baptism  of  water,  and  recognize  only  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Socinians  see  in  baptism  only 
a  ceremony  of  initiation  to  Christianity  for  Jewish 
and  heathen  proselytes,  and  declare  that  baptism 
should  not  be  given  to  the  children  of  Christian 
parents.  Socinians  are  therefore  a  Baptist  sect. 
Zwingle  recognizes  in  baptism  only  an  external 
mark  of  admission  into  the  Church.  Calvin  sees  in 
it  a  grace  received  at  the  moment  of  performance, 
but  on  condition  of  faith,  without  which  the  grace  is 
not  imparted.  Luther  places  in  the  rite  a  grace  in- 
dependent of  faith,  and  inherent  to  the  word  of  con- 
secration ;  baptism,  moreover,  at  the  moment  when 
performed,  takes  away  the  penalty  of  original  sin. 
The  Episcopal  Church,  in  England  and  in  the  United 
States,  is  still  discussing  whether  baptismal  regen- 
eration is  necessarily  part  of  its  doctrine  or  not. 
Romanists  make  baptism  a  condition  of  salvation, 
and  connect  with  its  reception  a  magical  grace,  an 
opus  operatum ;  the  Greeks,  without  being  so  pre- 
cise, follow  at  a  distance  the  baptismal  doctrine  of 
Rome.  As  to  the  Protestant  Pedobaptists  of  France 
and  Switzerland,  they  hold  at  present  a  variety  of 
opinions  on  baptism,  all  extremely  indefinite,  and 
thus  highly  favorable  to  the  spread  of  Baptist  prin- 
ciples.    The  same  might  be  said  to  some  extent  of 

12*  R 


274  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

English  and  American  Pedobaptists.  The  want  of 
careful  discrimination  in  some  passages  between 
the  baptism  of  water  and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  opens  a  wide  range  for  attributing  to  the  rite 
various  degrees  of  mysterious  efficacy  short  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  although  this  latter  is  the  only 
true  result  of  the  confusion  of  the  two  baptisms. 

It  is  not  astonishing  that  this  vagueness,  this 
uncertainty,  these  diversities,  and  these  contradic- 
tions in  Pedobaptism,  disgust  many  evangelical 
Christians,  and  carry  them  over  to  Anabaptism, 
where  they  imagine  they  shall  find  perspicuity,  pre- 
cision, and  the  absence  of  all  sacramental  mysti- 
cism. But  here  again  disappointment  awaits  them. 
They  will  find  that  the  system  rests  upon  the  out- 
ward form,  but  that  the  spiritual  idea  of  baptism  is 
as  vague  and  indefinite  there  as  elsewhere.  They 
will  find  that,  amongst  Baptists,  some  hold  to  the 
idea  of  Zwingle,  while  others  see  in  baptism  a 
spiritual  conformity  to  the  death  of  Christ ;  others, 
a  burial,  literal,  real,  and  material ;  others,  a  special 
grace  conferred ;  others,  a  simple  act  of  obedience, 
without  the  communication  of  any  special  grace  ; 
others,  baptismal  regeneration ;  finally,  all  attach  to 
it  an  excessive  importance,  which  raises  baptism  to 
the  level  of  the  fundamental  doctrines.  We  have 
just  mentioned  Baptists  as  believing  in  baptismal 
regeneration.     Let  this  astonish  no  one  ;  it  is  the 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   275 

culminating  point  towards  which  the  whole  Baptist 
system  tends,  and  where  it  is  always  sure  to  arrive 
sooner  or  later.  A  large  division  of  American 
Baptists,  very  active  and  very  respectable,  is  now 
constituted  on  this  very  basis.  These  are  the  Camp- 
bellites,  who  number  already  about  four  hundred 
thousand,  and  who  have  it  for  their  doctrinal  device 
that  water-baptism  and  regeneration  are  one  and 
simultaneous,  and  that  baptism  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion. The  other  Baptist  sects  are  not  quite  so  far 
advanced  in  theory ;  but  in  practice  they  have 
already,  with  little  exception,  reached  this  platform, 
and  in  their  eyes  a  man  is  truly  a  Christian  only 
after  having  undergone  immersion.  Anabaptism  is 
thus  the  great  bridge  by  which  to  return  from  Prot- 
estantism to  Romanism,  through  sacramental  regen- 
eration. We  say  nothing  here  of  Mormon  Baptists 
and  of  the  old  Anabaptists,  to  whom  baptism  by 
immersion  is  the  initiation  to  carnal  life. 

§  126.  The  only  Escape  from  Uncertainty 
offered  by  the  Bible  is  to  connect  Baptism 
with  Circumcision.  —  Now  there  is  one  way,  and 
only  one  Scriptural  way,  to  fix  with  precision  the 
true  meaning  of  baptism,  and  to  avoid  this  labyrinth 
of  vague,  mystical,  or  superstitious  opinions,  and 
that  is  to  connect  it  closely  with  circumcision. 
This  is  what  we  have  already  done  ;  and  we  need 


276  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

not  return  here  to  our  proofs.  Circumcision  had  a 
clear  and  precise  meaning.  It  was  the  seal  of  an 
alliance  concluded  between  the  Lord  and  the  family 
of  a  believer  ;  a  solemn  ratification,  a  symbolical  ex- 
pression of  that  covenant ;  an  engagement  on  the 
part  of  the  head  of  the  house,  binding  both  him  and 
his  to  the  service  of  the  Lord  ;  a  religious  promise 
for  the  future.  Now,  we  say  that  baptism  is  this, — 
all  this,  and  nothing  but  this.  It  differs  from  cir- 
cumcision only  because  it  relates  to  another  cove- 
nant ;  but  it  binds  to  that  new  covenant,  in  the  same 
manner,  and  with  the  same  results,  as  circumcision 
bound  to  the  old.  It  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  the  sign  of  a  covenant.  "We  go  still  further, 
and  assert,  that  if  baptism  does  not  hold  under  the 
New  Covenant  the  place  which  circumcision  held 
under  the  old,  its  value  becomes  unknown.  The 
New  Testament  not  having  fixed  this  value,  baptism 
will  be  whatever  you  please.  It  will  be  like  one  of 
those  gutta-percha  figures  which  you  can  by  pulling 
cause  to  assume  any  shape  and  any  expression. 
Baptism  will  have  to  undergo,  as  indeed  it  does 
already,  all  sorts  of  modifications  to  suit  various 
doctrines,  systems,  or  ecclesiastical  forms.  Tertul- 
lian,  Socinus,  Luther,  Mennon,  Carson,  Campbell, 
Rome,  and  the  Mormons  can  each  and  all  set  up 
their  views  with  impunity  ;  for  to  their  baptisms  can 
only  be  opposed  other  theories,  more  or  less  plau- 


INNERMOST   MEANING   AND   VALUE   OF   BAPTISM.      277 

sible,  but  which  are  at  best  only  probabilities,  un- 
supported by  Scriptural  proof. 

§  127.  The  Grace  of  Covenant  imparted 
through  Baptism.  —  If  we  are  asked,  Does  bap- 
tism confer  any  special  grace,  or  does  it  save  ?  we 
answer,  As  much  as  circumcision,  and  no  more. 
Circumcision,  well  understood,  was  a  great  privi- 
lege and  blessing  to  a  family,  for  by  it  God  was 
bound  to  the  parent  and  also  to  the  child  who 
received  it.  The  Lord  had  connected  his  prom- 
ises with  the  token  of  covenant.  This  condition 
once  fulfilled  by  the  parent,  the  Lord  was  solemnly 
bound  by  his  own  promise.  But  the  special  grace 
imparted  by  God  did  not  consist  in  an  internal 
change  of  the  soul,  effected  suddenly  at  the  mo- 
ment of  circumcision.  There  was  neither  magic 
nor  sacramental  virtue  in  the  ceremony.  No,  not 
any  more  than  in  the  seal  which  is  affixed  to  a 
treaty,  or  in  the  flag  hoisted  on  a  foreign  land  as 
a  sign  of  taking  possession.  The  grace,  consisting 
in  an  engagement  on  the  part  of  God,  commenced 
with  the  sign,  in  order  to  last  during  the  whole 
life,  or  at  least  as  long  as  there  was  no  open  re- 
bellion or  positive  unfaithfulness  on  the  part  of 
the  circumcised.  The  grace  was  like  that  of  a 
treaty  or  a  political  alliance  which  confers  certain 
privileges.     The  privilege  becomes  operative  from 


278  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER, 

the  moment  the  treaty  is  duly  signed  and  sealed, 
and  in  that  sense  the  signature  and  the  seal  con- 
fer the  grace  ;  but  it  is  only  the  beginning  of  a 
grace,  which  may  be  developed  and  confirmed  by 
time  and  practice,  or  which,  on  the  contrary,  may 
grow  weaker,  and  become  ineffective  by  neglect 
and  unfaithfulness.  Such,  on  the  part  of  God,  is 
the  grace  of  baptism ;  it  is  easily  understood,  and 
from  this  simple  point  of  view  there  is  room  in 
that  ordinance  for  neither  mysticism  nor  sacra- 
mental superstition. 

This  grace  of  baptism  has  been  very  much  ex- 
aggerated both  by  Romanists  and  Baptists.  The 
former  hold  it  to  be  indispensable  to  the  salvation 
of  a  child  ;  the  latter,  by  making  it  an  effective 
burial  with  Christ,  have  also  unavoidably  made  it 
the  principal  sacrament.  While  the  Holy  Supper 
is  but  a  remembrance  of  the  death  of  Christ,  their 
baptism  is  that  death  itself,  dramatically  under- 
gone by  the  believer.  But  it  is  when  considered 
in  connection  with  their  discipline  that  the  sacra- 
mental virtue,  the  opus  operatum,  which  they  un- 
consciously attribute  to  baptism,  is  most  clearly 
seen.  Previous  to  having  received  immersion,  the 
most  pious  and  devoted  servant  of  God  is  consid- 
ered too  unfaithful  a  Christian  to  be  allowed  the 
communion  or  the  privileges  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.     Before    the    Lord's    table    he    is    ranked 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   279 

with  infidels,  and  forbidden  to  commemorate  the 
Saviour's  death.  But  let  him  consent  to  be 
plunged,  and  the  moment  he  has  undergone  the 
Baptist  ceremony  he  becomes  suddenly  a  good 
Christian,  and  is  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Now,  immersion  must  have 
transformed  the  moral  character  of  that  man,  in- 
stantaneously changing  him  from  a  bad  man  into 
a  good  Christian.  This  is  truly  a  miracle  wrought 
by  the  Baptist  minister,  and  very  similar  to  that 
of  the  priest  in  the  mass.  In  both  cases,  the  tes- 
timony of  experience  and  of  the  senses,  which 
affirm  that  the  bread  remains  the  same,  and  that 
the  man  is  the  same  after  as  before  his  immer- 
sion, is  rejected,  in  order  to  enhance  the  fictitious 
value  of  the  ceremony. 

§  128.  The  Baptism  of  the  whole  Family  has 
most  important  Results  upon  the  Education  of 
Children.  —  Besides  the  grace  of  closer  relation  to 
God  by  means  of  baptism,  there  is  another  subor- 
dinate one  in  reference  to  the  Christian  family-life. 
Circumcision  did  not  only  bind  the  child  to  God, 
it  also  bound  the  parent  to  the  child.  The  lat- 
ter, in  consequence  of  the  token  of  covenant,  was 
obliged  to  obey  the  Lord  from  his  earliest  youth  ; 
he  had  to  be  brought  up  in  the  fear  of  God,  to 
consider  him   as  his   Master,  to   feel  bound  by  a 


280  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

former  engagement  to  be  his,  and  to  regard  dis- 
obedience to  his  commands  in  the  light  of  a  re- 
bellion, the  infraction  of  a  family  compact,  the 
breaking  of  a  sacred  covenant.  This  view  was  a 
most  elevated  one,  and  so  highly  beneficial  to  re- 
ligious education  that  nothing  could  replace  it ; 
and  yet  it  is  this  magnificent  domestic  privilege 
which  Baptists  would  take  away  from  us  !  Bap- 
tism places  us  in  precisely  the  same  religious  po- 
sition towards  children  as  circumcision  formerly 
did ;  and,  had  it  been  otherwise,  it  is  certain  that 
the  latter  would  never  have  given  way  to  the 
former,  but  would  have  been  maintained  to  this 
day.  Clearly  for  this  reason  are  parents  told  "  to 
bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  the  Lord"  (Eph.  vi.  4),  or,  more  cor- 
rectly, according  to  the  original,  "  in  the  discipline 
and  teaching  of  the  Lord."  But  this  discipline, 
or  rather  this  discipleship,  of  the  child  implies  a 
covenant,  a  taking  possession  of  the  little  ones  by 
the  Lord,  as  belonging  to  the  household  of  faith ; 
otherwise  it  could  not  exist,  or  at  least  would  be 
but  an  unconditional  slavery,  without  reward  or 
promise.  For  this  reason,  again,  does  Peter  speak 
of  baptism  as  "  the  pledge  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God."  (See  1  Pet.  iii.  21  in  the  original.) 
In  effect,  baptism  binds  man  and  pledges  him  with 
his   offspring  to   a  Christian   life,  which   must  be 


INNERMOST   MEANING  AND  VALUE   OF  BAPTISM.      281 

realized  first  in  his  own  family.  The  baptism  of 
the  whole  household  is  so  really  included  in  that 
of  the  head  of  the  family,  that  Holy  Writ,  in  re- 
lating such  baptisms,  deviates  from  the  ordinary 
mode  of  language,  and,  instead  of  saying,  "  they 
were  baptized,"  states  that  "he  was  baptized,  —  he 
and  all  his"  (Acts  xvi.  33),  —  the  baptism  of  his 
family  being  treated  only  as  a  necessary  part  of 
his  own. 

§  129.  It  is  False  that  a  Child  has  no  Re- 
ligion. —  Since  infant  baptism  exerts  a  blessed  in- 
fluence upon  the  education  of  the  family,  it  must 
be  inferred  that  a  consistent  Pedobaptist  household 
is  the  best  regulated  of  any.  There  alone  can  pa- 
ternal authority  claim  its  full  and  legitimate  sphere. 
The  Pedobaptist  father,  like  Abraham  and  Joshua, 
has  imposed  his  religion  upon  his  family,  and  made 
them  by  paternal  authority  the  disciples  of  the  Lord. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  wide  spread  of  Baptist  prin- 
ciples is  not  without  its  influence  upon  that  early 
emancipation  of  children  and  disregard  of  parental 
authority  which  so  often  painfully  strikes  the  Euro- 
pean visitor  in  America. 

Baptism  implies  the  adoption  of  a  religion,  not 
only  for  the  person  baptized,  but  for  the  house  of 
which  he  is  or  may  become  the  head,  as  far  as  his 
authority  extends.     This  is  not  only  a  doctrinal,  but 


282  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

also  an  experimental  truth.  Nothing  can  be  more 
false  than  the  notion  that  a  child  may  remain  with- 
out adopting  a  religion  until  he  is  an  adult.  The 
celebrated  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  in  his  Enrile,  has 
carried  out  this  Baptist  idea,  and  it  is  known  what 
a  sad  failure  it  has  proved.  A  child  has  always 
some  kind  of  a  religion,  borrowed  from  those  who 
educate  him.  The  child  of  the  Jew  is  a  Jew,  the 
child  of  the  Romanist  is  a  Romanist,  the  child  of 
the  heathen  is  a  heathen,  —  this  is  seen  everywhere. 
The  very  earliest  education  of  a  child,  even  when 
silence  upon  religious  subjects  is  observed  in  his 
presence,  will  always  reflect  the  principles  of  his 
educators,  and  imply  some  belief,  true  or  false,  like 
theirs.  Many  children  of  Christian  parents,  even  at 
the  early  age  of  three  or  four  years,  have  a  faith  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  is  infinitely  superior  to 
that  of  the  ignorant  and  hardened  crowds  which 
John  baptized.  Now  the  child  of  a  Christian  being 
neither  a  Jew  nor  a  heathen,  we  ask,  What  is  his 
religion,  unless  it  be  the  Christian  religion  ?  and 
then,  why  deny  to  him  the  external  sign  of  a  cov- 
evant  that  he  is  compelled  to  keep  ? 

§  130.  The  Faith  of  Parents  is  efficacious  to- 
wards their  Children,  and  by  Baptism  is  con- 
firmed and  receives  a  determinate  Impulse. — 

This  excessive  aversion  to  let  the  faith  of  parents 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   283 

extend  over  children,  and  operate  in  their  behalf, 
may  appear  eminently  spiritual  to  some ;  but  the 
fact  is,  that  it  is  very  carnal,  that  it  is  an  ill-dis- 
guised unbelief,  for  the  Gospel  exhibits  by  many 
striking  incidents  the  spiritual  efficacy  of  the  faith 
of  parents  in  behalf  of  their  children.  Now  it  is 
the  faith  of  a  father,  now  that  of  a  mother,  which 
delivers  a  child  from  the  possession  of  a  devil  that 
vexed  him  (Matt.  xv.  22 ;  xvii.  18)  ;  and  the  faith 
of  the  parent  operates  most  effectually  by  simply 
presenting  the  child  with  confidence  to  the  Lord. 
Now  it  is  the  faith  of  the  master  of  the  house  that 
avails  to  cure  his  servant.  (Matt.  viii.  1.)  And, 
again,  it  is  the  faith  of  believing  parents,  who  force 
their  way  to  Jesus  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  mis- 
taken disciples,  which  procures  to  their  little  ones  a 
special  blessing  from  the  Saviour.  Thus  we  find 
in  the  Gospels  numerous  instances  of  the  faith  of 
parents,  masters,  and  protectors  operating  for  the 
spiritual  benefit  of  their  charge,  and  why  then  in 
the  name  of  individual  faith  take  umbrage  at  the 
baptism  of  infants  ?  Through  these  incidents  the 
Gospel  affords  for  the  faith  of  the  parent,  acting 
instead  and  in  behalf  of  the  child,  a  scope  far 
more  ample  than  is  required  for  infant  baptism. 
Only  an  external  assent  to  Christianity  is  needed, 
which  any  parent  not  an  infidel  is  entirely  com- 
petent to  give  for  his  child,  and  which  will  be  bind 


284  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

ing  upon  him  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  experience, 
as  well  as  of  doctrine. 

§  131.  Whatever  Exertions  are  made  to  smug- 
gle Children  into  the  Covenant,  they  are  never 
deprived  of  Baptism  with  perfect  Impunity. — 

We  shall  probably  be  told  that  many  Baptist  parents 
bring  up  their  children  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
without  having  conferred  baptism  upon  them.  This 
is  true,  and  is  a  very  happy  inconsistency.  It  is  a 
silent  admission  of  the  truth  of  Pedobaptism  to 
endeavor  to  bring  one's  children  into  the  covenant 
of  God  as  it  were  contraband,  and  without  resort- 
ing to  the  ordinance  which  he  has  prescribed  for 
their  introduction  into  it.  WJien  the  thing  itself  is 
desired,  it  is  at  least  unfair  to  raise  so  many  ob- 
jections to  the  sign  that  represents  its  possession. 
Why  impose  one's  religion  upon  a  child,  and  im- 
agine that  the  claims  of  individual  faith  are  saved 
by  refusing  him  the  badge  of  the  service  to  which 
he  is  compelled ! 

But,  again,  it  will  be  said,  that  these  unbap- 
tized  children  do  not  fare  any  worse  than  others  ; 
that  the  religious  influence  is  precisely  the  same 
for  them  as  if  they  had  been  baptized.  This  we 
deny  ;  there  is  an  important  difference.  A  sim- 
ple promise  is  not  equal  to  an  oath.  The  hold- 
ing of  a  property  in  the  absence  of  all  regular  titles 


INNERMOST   MEANING   AND   VALUE   OF   BAPTISM.      285 

and  forms  can  never  be  equal  to  its  possession 
according  to  the  rules  of  the  kingdom,  with  signa- 
ture and  seal.  There  is  always  an  uncertainty  and 
a  secret  suspicion  of  a  flaw  in  the  title,  and  this 
feeling,  which  cannot  be  altogether  banished,  spoils 
the  enjoyment  of  the  property  ;  it  does  not,  perhaps, 
destroy,  but  it  at  least  mars  its  benefits,  and  lessens 
the  value  of  the  whole.  A  Christian  who  volun- 
tarily and  on  principle  abstains  from  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  do  the  Quakers,  may  boast  that  he  pos- 
sesses Jesus  Christ  and  the  sanctifying  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  fully  as  his  evangelical  breth- 
ren, and  yet  there  is  a  difference  which  sooner  or 
later  will  manifest  itself  by  unfavorable  results. 
Experience  shows  that  one  can  be  an  excellent  and 
devoted  Christian,  and  yet  abstain  for  conscience' 
sake  from  ever  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but 
it  is  nevertheless  true  that  Jesus  Christ  has  insti- 
tuted that  sacrament  for  the  good  of  the  faithful, 
and  that  it  cannot  be  neglected  with  perfect  impu- 
nity. The  faith  of  a  pious  Quaker  would  only  be  the 
more  lively,  and  his  spiritual  enjoyment  the  greater, 
if  he  could  participate  in  this  holy  ceremony.  This 
conscientious  abstaining  is  after  all  a  blemish  in  his 
Christian  character,  and  an  element  of  weakness  in 
his  piety.  It  is  the  same  thing  with  the  neglect  of 
infant  baptism.  The  Baptist  parent  may  be  as 
devout  a  Christian  as  the  Quaker;  he  may  even, 


286  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

with  a  happy  inconsistency,  rear  his  children  under 
the  holy  influences  of  the  Covenant,  while  denying 
to  them  its  sign,  and  they,  notwithstanding  this 
neglect,  may  inherit  the  piety  of  their  parent ;  but 
nevertheless  a  means  of  grace  intended  for  them  has 
been  set  aside  or  postponed,  and  their  spiritual  ad- 
vantages have  been  so  far  diminished  and  set  in 
danger.  If  the  piety  of  many  Baptist  brethren  is 
a  sufficient  proof  that  infant  baptism  may  be  neg- 
lected with  impunity,  so  may  the  piety  of  many 
Quakers  be  considered  an  equal  proof  against  the 
ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  parent  who 
causes  his  child  to  be  baptized,  contracts  before  God 
and  man  a  solemn  engagement,  which  strengthens 
faith  and  the  sense  of  Christian  duty  in  the  education 
of  the  family.  The  omission  of  the  sign  may  only 
diminish  in  the  minds  of  some  parents  the  feeling 
of  religious  responsibility  towards  their  offspring, 
but  in  others  it  will  totally  destroy  it.  The  result 
in  any  case  will  prove  injurious  to  the  family  ;  the 
consequences  may  not  be  developed  immediately,  it 
may  be  years  before  they  become  apparent,  but  then 
they  will  be  serious  and  irreparable. 

§  132.  God  takes  Baptist  Parents  at  tbeir 
Word,  and  their  Children  do  the  same.  —  There 
is  another  mischievous  consequence  resulting  from 
the  neglect  of  the  baptism  of  children,  and  which 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   287 

unfailingly  manifests  itself  in  them  as  soon  as  they 
are  old  enough  to  think.  It  is  impossible  to  conceal 
from  them  the  fact  that  they  have  not  been  baptized, 
while  other  children  have.  Although  unable  fully 
to  appreciate  the  import  of  baptism,  yet  they  feel 
that  they  are  placed  in  an  exceptional  position,  that 
the  children  of  other  evangelical  families  are  one 
step  in  advance  of  them  in  the  external  profession 
of  Christianity.  They  question  their  parents,  and 
soon  ascertain  that  they  are  on  a  level  with  the 
unconverted  world,  and  that  until  the  distant  and 
uncertain  event  of  their  becoming  believers  takes 
place,  Christian  duties  are  not  and  cannot  be  binding 
upon  them.  They  understand  very  well  that  their 
parents  have  placed  them  outside  the  covenanted 
obligations  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  they  differ  from 
the  children  of  heathen  only  by  a  greater  knowl- 
edge. With  children  of  a  happy  and  docile  tem- 
perament, this  dangerous  feeling  may  not  obtain 
the  mastery,  and  they  may  in  spite  of  it  attach 
themselves  to  their  parents'  religion.  But  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  it  will  strengthen  the  natural 
repulsion  of  the  heart  to  the  Gospel,  extinguish 
the  sense  of  religious  duty  which  parents  will  in 
vain  strive  to  awake,  and  the  child  will  persistently 
remain  exactly  where  his  parents  have  placed  him, 
—  outside  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  its  customs 
and  its  obligations.     Indeed,  this  feeling  will  often 


288  THE   BAPTISM   OF    WATER. 

deepen  into  aversion  to  the  Gospel.  One  needs 
only  to  live  in  a  place  where  Baptists  are  numerous 
to  become  convinced  by  personal  observation  of  the 
truth  of  these  facts.  Indeed,  these  alarming  results 
are  so  evident  as  to  prevent  many  parents  from 
openly  turning  Baptists,  although  pretty  much  so  in 
theory.  This  explains  also  why  Baptist  sects  have 
ever  been  unable  to  sustain  themselves  by  means  of 
conversions  from  the  world  or  from  the  children  of 
Baptist  families.  They  are  always  making  inroads 
upon  other  evangelical  churches,  and  seeking  to 
recruit  from  amongst  them  disciples,  whom  they 
profess  to  baptize  for  the  first  time  by  immersing 
them  after  years  of  conversion  and  Christian  life. 
It  is  even  confidently  asserted,  that,  on  an  average, 
four  fifths  of  the  members  of  Baptist  churches  were 
baptized  in  childhood,  and  afterwards  re-baptized, 
which  shows  how  much  that  Pedobaptism  has  been 
blessed  to  them  which  they  foolishly  imagine  it 
their  conscientious  duty  to  spurn.  Let  all  the 
Christian  churches  of  a  given  country  become  Bap- 
tist, and  let  them  thus  lose  the  opportunity  of  re- 
cruiting their  members  amongst  Pedobaptists,  and 
the  decline  of  these  churches  will  be  rapid,  while 
the  country  returns  gradually  to  heathenism  and 
unbelief. 

§  133.    By  calling  Baptism  a  Righteousness, 


INNERMOST   MEANING   AND   VALUE   OF   BAPTISM.      289 

tlie   Lord  places  it  on  a  JLcvel  with  the  Cere- 
monies  of  Purification  in  the  Old  Testament. 

—  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  calls  the  baptism  of  water 
a  righteousness.  (Matt.  iii.  15.)  This  expression, 
which  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  casts  some  light  on  the  value  of  bap- 
tism. Righteousness  is  an  expression  borrowed 
from  the  Old  Testament,  which  expresses  the  ex- 
ternal duties  of  religion  according  to  the  law. 
(Deut.  vi.  25.)  Circumcision  was  a  righteousness, 
and  our  Saviour,  because  the  son  of  man,  had  to 
receive  it,  although  in  some  sense  it  was  unworthy 
of  him.  In  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same  rea- 
son he  received  baptism ;  because  this  ceremony  is 
"  a  righteousness,  and  it  become th  him  to  fulfil  it." 
But  the  expression  used  here  by  our  Saviour  im- 
plies also  that  baptism  is  connected  with  the  Old 
Testament  as  an  external  purification  of  the  flesh, 
ordained  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and  only  such  a  water 
baptism  could  Christ  receive  with  any  propriety,  as 
he  had  no  sins  to  repent  of,  like  the  rest  of  the  peo- 
ple that  were  baptized.  In  that  sense  also  does 
Peter  understand  the  baptism  of  water,  and  he 
speaks  of  it  with  little  reverence,  as  a  ceremony 
"  for  the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh." 
(1  Pet.  iii.  21.)  From  this  point  of  view,  it  is  easily 
seen  how  fitting  it  was  that  a  Gentile  be  intro- 
duced to  the  kingdom  of  God  by  a  baptism  which 
13  s 


290  THE  BAPTISM  OF   WATER. 

would  symbolically  purify  his  flesh  from  its  cere- 
monial defilement.  We  see  why  the  Apostles,  being 
Jews,  would  never  teach  a  Gentile  until  after  he 
was  baptized,  and  why  their  Master  commanded 
them  to  follow  that  rule,  "  Baptize  and  teach." 
We  understand  also  how,  as  a  purification  of  the 
flesh,  baptism  is  appropriate  to  infants,  who  are  the 
flesh  and  bone  of  their  parents,  and  who,  being  born 
in  corruption  and  defiled,  need  very  early  that  same 
symbolic  and  lustral  purifying.  This  is,  indeed,  the 
lowest  aspect  of  baptism,  but  it  is  one  set  forth  by 
the  Lord  and  by  Peter,  and  one  which  must  never 
be  lost  sight  of  while  endeavoring  to  take  a  higher 
view  of  the  rite.  Moreover,  as  a  ceremonial  right- 
eousness, baptism  should  not  be  denied  to  infants, 
for  no  one  has  yet  asserted  that  babes  should  not  be 
washed  until  they  are  old  enough  to  appreciate  the 
advantages  of  cleanliness.  They  must  be  washed 
for  the  parents'  sake  if  not  for  their  own,  and  bap- 
tism is  after  all  a  religious  washing  of  the  flesh,  and 
not  of  the  soul. 

§  134.    The   Baptism  of  Fire  is  not  that    of 
the    Holy  Ghost,  hut  is  the  Baptism  of  Hell.— 

John  the  Baptist  said,  "  Jesus  Christ  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  and  the 
Jacobites,  thinking  to  be  very  Scriptural,  take  this 
passage  as  literally  and  materially  as  the  Baptists 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   201 

do  that  on  the  burial  with  Christ  by  baptism.  Ac- 
cordingly they  do  not  baptize  without  marking,  with 
a  red-hot  iron,  a  cross  on  the  forehead  of  their  chil- 
dren. Their  practice  is  fully  as  justifiable  and  as 
Scriptural  as  that  of  immersion. 

Fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost  have  generally  been 
understood  in  this  passage  as  synonymous,  or  at 
least  as  referring  to  the  same  spiritual  baptism. 
This  view  seems  confirmed  by  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  received  at  Pentecost,  where  tongues  of 
fire  were  seen  to  rest  on  the  heads  of  the  Apostles. 
We  must,  however,  differ  from  the  common  inter- 
pretation, and  see  in  the  baptism  of  fire  the  opposite 
of  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  namely,  the  baptism  of 
Hell.  We  consider  that  sound  criticism  compels  us 
to  accept  this  interpretation,  which  is  in  fact  given 
by  John  himself.  For  he  has  no  sooner  mentioned 
this  baptism  of  fire,  than  he  immediately  states  in  a 
parallel  sentence  what  he  means  by  the  fire  with 
which  the  Messiah  is  to  baptize.  "  He  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire ;  —  he  will  gather 
his  wheat  into  the  garner,  but  he  will  burn  up  the 
chaff  with  unquenchable  fire."  (Matt.  iii.  11,  12.) 
There  is  no  reason  for  taking  the  word  fire  in  two 
totally  different  meanings  in  the  same  passage,  and 
therefore  John  evidently  means  a  baptism  of  un- 
quenchable fire.  Indeed,  this  throws  a  beautiful 
light  on  the  spiritual  and  symbolical  sense  of  bap- 


292  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

tism.  Christ  is  both  to  save  and  to  judge  the  world  ; 
he  is  himself  to  baptize  every  man ;  no  one  will 
escape  from  his  baptism,  —  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
and  of  mercy  to  the  one,  a  baptism  of  fire  and  dam- 
nation to  the  other,  and  both  these  future  baptisms 
of  Christ  were  prefigured  in  the  water-baptism  of 
John.  Had  the  fire  been  mentioned  here  only  as  a 
qualification  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  John  would  scarcely 
have  spoken  the  truth  to  the  crowds  around  him,  in 
promising  them  this  baptism  of  spiritual  grace,  for 
very  few  of  them  indeed  received  it.  But  there  is 
an  awful  and  stern  reality  in  his  preaching  to  the 
people  that  their  expected  Messiah  is  coming  to 
purify  the  world,  for  such  is  the  essential  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize  (§  78).  He  shall  indeed 
purify  either  by  the  Spirit  or  by  fire,  either  by  mer- 
cifully washing  away  their  sin,  or  by  burning  it  in 
the  unquenchable  fire  of  damnation ;  but  through 
one  or  other  of  these  two  baptisms  shall  the  world 
pass  and  be  purified.  The  same  idea  may  be  im- 
plied in  the  tongues  of  fire,  symbolic  of  the  mission 
of  the  Apostles,  whose  tongues  cannot  preach  mercy 
without  also  implying  damnation  to  those  who  re- 
main hardened. 

This  idea  of  purifying,  which  is  the  predominant 
one  in  the  word  baptize,  throws  a  spiritual  light  on 
several  passages.  For  instance,  take  these  words, 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved," 


INNERMOST   MEANING   AND   VALUE   OF   BAPTISM.      293 

(Mark  xvi.  16,)  and  substitute  purify  for  baptize, 
and  you  read,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  purified 
shall  be  saved."  A  meaning  as  simple  as  it  is  beau- 
tiful, referring  to  the  spiritual  purification  of  sin  by 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Again,  the  baptism 
for  the  dead,  ordered  by  Moses  and  alluded  to  by 
Paul,  means  that  purification  is  necessary  after  con- 
tact with  the  dead.  This  world  is  a  world  of  the 
dead  ;  it  is  defiled  by  sin,  and  death  is  the  consum- 
mation of  sin.  Christian  baptism  is  a  baptism  for 
the  dead  ;  it  expresses  the  spiritual  idea  that  man, 
nay,  the  very  infant,  is  defiled  by  contact  with  the 
world,  and  by  belonging  to  it,  and  that  he  needs  to 
be  purified  by  Christ  before  he  can  draw  near  to 
God. 

§  135.  The  Baptism  of  the  Gospel  is  intended 
to  prepare  the  Way  for  the  Coming  of  the  Lord, 
aud,  as  such,  suits  Infants  better  than  any  other 
Class.  —  The  baptism  practised  by  John  the  Baptist 
was  intended  to  prepare  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  ; 
this  is  an  essential  feature  of  the  ordinance,  which 
deserves  our  attention.  The  mission  of  John  con- 
sisted in  being  the  Forerunner  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
was  wholly  symbolized  in  his  baptism.  He  baptized 
the  people  that  they  might  be  prepared  to  receive 
the  Messiah,  and  his  baptism  is  considered  as  the 
very  beginning  of  the  Gospel.    (Mark  i.  1.)    When 


294  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  eleven  Apostles  met  to  elect  the  twelfth,  the  man 
of  their  choice  must  be  a  witness  of  all  the  facts  of 
the  Gospel,  "  beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John." 
(Acts  i.  22.)  Finally,  we  have  the  declaration  of 
John  himself :  "  And  I  knew  him  not ;  but  that  he 
should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I 
come  baptizing  with  water."  (John  i.  31.)  He 
baptizes,  therefore,  with  reference  to  a  Saviour  not 
yet  revealed,  and  for  the  express  purpose  of  making 
him  manifest  to  those  whom  he  was  baptizing.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Baptist  view,  he  should  have  baptized 
only  in  reference  to  a  Saviour  already  manifest  and 
crucified,  so  that  he  might  have  buried  the  people 
into  his  death.  But  no  ;  the  Gospel  places  baptism 
before  the  manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  which 
it  is  intended  to  prepare  the  way.  This  leading  ob- 
ject is  attained  by  infant  baptism,  while  it  is  missed 
by  baptism  after  faith.  Little  children  are,  like  the 
Jewish  people,  in  a  state  of  expectancy  of  a  religion 
which  is  about  to  be  made  manifest  unto  them,  and 
for  the  reception  of  which  it  is  proper  they  should 
be  prepared,  and  prepared  according  to  the  Gos- 
pel, by  baptism.  As  Jesus  Christ  ordains  it  in  his 
commission  to  the  Apostles,  they  must  be  made 
disciples  ;  that  is  to  say,  they  must  be  introduced 
into  the  Covenant  by  being  first  baptized  and  then 
taught.  Baptism  is  the  beginning  of  the  beginning 
of  the  Gospel,  the  very  first  step,  and  that  step  only 


INNERMOST   MEANING   AND   VALUE   OF   BAPTISM.      295 

one  of  preparation.  Blessed  be  the  parent  who  in 
the  first  days  of  his  child  is  anxious  to  prepare  him 
by  this  initiatory  ordinance  for  an  early  reception 
of  Jesus  Christ ! 

§  136.  The  Gospel  knows  no  other  Baptism 
than  that  of  the  Called,  who  have  not  yet  ob- 
tained the  Remission  of  Sins.  —  The  baptism  of 
John  was  identified  with  his  preaching.  "  He  has 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance,"  says  Scrip- 
ture in  many  places.  And  he  preached  that  bap- 
tism and  conferred  it  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
(Mark  i.  4,  5.)  Observe  that  he  did  not  baptize, 
as  Baptists  do,  those  who  were  thought  to  have 
already  obtained  remission  of  sins,  but  a  totally 
different  class,  —  those  who  were  seeking  that  re- 
mission, and  who  resorted  to  baptism  as  a  means 
to  obtain  it.  Baptism  by  water  was  therefore  the 
symbol  of  the  preaching  to  the  unconverted,  and 
an  effective  instrument  for  calling  sinners  to  the 
Saviour,  who  would  impart  to  them  the  true  wash- 
ing of  sins  figured  by  that  of  water.  The  moment 
a  man  was  pricked  in  his  heart  at  the  hearing  of 
the  Gospel,  and  asked,  What  shall  I  do  ?  he  was 
answered,  Receive  the  baptism  of  repentance  as 
the  first  step  towards  obtaining  remission  of  sins. 
Then  persevere,  be  faithful  to  the  pledge  of  thy 
baptism,  and  thou  shalt  find  what  thou  seekest, 


296  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

even  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Such  is  the  lan- 
guage which  Peter  holds  to  the  three  thousand  who 
were  baptized  in  one  day.  (Acts  ii.  37,  38.)  This 
is  also  the  language  of  Ananias  at  the  baptism  of 
the  alarmed  but  unconverted  Paul :  "  Arise  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  (xxii.  16.)  Thus  the  Gospel 
knows  only  a  baptism  of  the  called,  but  the  Baptists 
only  a  baptism  of  the  elect,  which  is  even  farther 
removed  from  truth  than  Mass  is  from  the  Holy 
Supper. 

§  137.  No  Theory  of  Baptism  is  true  unless  it 
fully  accounts  for  the  Haste  and  Precipitancy 
of  the  Apostles  to  confer  it. — Let  us  connect  here 
with  this  preaching  by  baptism  another  very  remark- 
able fact,  —  that  of  the  great  haste  with  which  that 
ordinance  was  applied,  and  which  we  have  noticed 
elsewhere.  We  have  seen  that  baptism  was  never 
refused  to  any  one  who  applied  for  it ;  for,  although 
John  said  to  the  Pharisees  who  came  to  him,  "  0 
generation  of  vipers  ! "  there  is  no  indication  nor 
probability  that  he  refused  baptism  to  any  of  them. 
Neither  did  they  ask  it,  for  they  had  no  confidence 
in  it ;  they  secretly  despised  it  and  left  it  to  the 
common  people.  We  have  ascertained,  moreover, 
that  there  is  not  one  single  instance  of  a  man  bap- 
tized later  than  the  very  day  and  the  very  hour 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   297 

when  he  gave  his  first  assent  to  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  In  the  night,  amidst  the  ruins  of  a 
prison  which  had  just  crumbled  on  its  founda- 
tions, the  household  of  the  jailer  hear  for  the  first 
time  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  they  listen. 
Straightway,  at  the  very  instant  (Trapa^prjiJia)^ 
without  waiting  for  daylight,  without  preparations, 
without  catechizing,  the  jailer  is  baptized  with  all 
his.  If,  as  Baptists  assert,  this  baptism  was  an  im- 
mersion, the  precipitancy  is  far  more  remarkable  ; 
for  supposing,  which  is  impossible,  that  the  prison 
of  a  Roman  province  enjoyed  the  comfort  of  a 
bath-room,  it  must  have  been  at  any  rate  difficult, 
amidst  the  confusion  of  that  terrible  night,  to  clear 
the  rubbish  and  to  procure  the  immense  quantity 
of  water  necessary.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
jailer  sent  to  awake  the  inhabitants  of  the  town 
in  the  middle  of  the  night,  to  borrow  from  them 
instantly  a  large  tub  capable  of  accommodating  at 
least  two  persons,  it  would  show  still  more  the  im- 
mense importance  which  the  Apostles  felt  that  there 
should  not  be  the  slightest  delay  in  the  performance 
of  baptism. 

All  the  narratives  of  baptism  found  in  Scripture 
witness  to  the  same  precipitancy.  They  all  convey 
the  same  idea  of  haste  :  "  And  now  why  tarriest 
thou  ?  arise,  and  be  baptized  ! "  (Acts  xxii.  1.6.) 
Were  we  to  admit,  with  Baptists,  the  baptism  of 

13* 


298  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

believers   only,   Scripture  will   even   then  declare, 

"  When  they  believed they  were  baptized." 

(Acts  viii.  12.)  At  the  very  moment  they  believe 
what  they  are  told  about  Jesus  Christ,  they  are  bap- 
tized without  delay.  But  the  Baptist  practice  is  in 
direct  opposition  to  this,  and  would  alter  Scripture 
to  "  After  they  had  believed  for  some  time,  they 
were  baptized."  It  is  owing  to  this  precipitancy, 
to  this  Apostolic  duty  of  haste,  that  there  is  not  a 
single  instance  in  Scripture  of  a  baptism  performed 
at  a  meeting  of  the  church,  or  by  a  special  appoint- 
ment made  beforehand,  as  is  the  practice  with  Bap- 
tists, who  make  of  this  rite  a  public  profession  of 
faith  similar  to  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Baptism 
was  performed  on  the  spot  where  it  was  first  thought 
of,  in  the  private  household,  or  in  the  desert,  or  on 
the  road-side.  It  was  often  given  without  any  wit- 
nesses, as  in  the  case  of  Paul  and  that  of  the  eunuch. 
This  ordinance  was  as  domestic  and  as  private  as 
that  of  circumcision,  of  which  it  takes  the  place. 

This  promptitude,  this  haste,  this  precipitancy, 
forms  therefore  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism.  Any  theory  of  baptism,  to  be 
credible,  is  bound  fully  to  account  for  this  invari- 
able fact,  to  explain  it,  and  to  show  how  such  a 
practice  necessarily  results  from  the  doctrine.  But 
neither  Baptists  nor  Pedobaptists  seem  to  have  taken 
the  slightest  notice  of  this  important  element  of  doc- 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.  299 

trine  and  practice  in  their  baptism  of  adults  after 
faith.  Where  the  Apostles  have  practised  haste  and 
precipitancy,  they  place  delay,  waiting,  examina- 
tion, and  discipline ;  but  surely  it  is  not  the  Apos- 
tles who  were  mistaken.  The  attempt  has  been 
made  to  explain  away  this  haste,  by  saying  that  the 
Apostles  had  the  power  to  read  the  heart,  and  for 
this  reason  needed  no  probation  of  the  convert's 
faith.  But  even  this  would  not  account  for  the 
extreme  haste  displayed ;  moreover,  all  apostolical 
precedents  for  baptism,  or  anything  else,  would  be 
invalidated  and  become  of  no  avail  to  us,  if  it  were 
once  admitted  that  miraculous  powers  dictated  all 
their  actions,  and  that,  instead  of  imitating  them, 
we  must  act  differently.  Finally,  it  is  not  true  that 
in  baptism  they  could  read  men's  hearts,  for  even 
in  this  ordinance  they  were  deceived.  Philip  has- 
tened to  baptize  Simon  Magus,  who  proved  a  few 
moments  afterwards  to  have  been  a  hypocrite. 

The  great  systematizer  and  observer  of  facts, 
Agassiz,  says  :  "  The  criterion  of  a  true  theory  con- 
sists in  the  facility  with  which  it  accounts  for  facts 
accumulated  in  the  course  of  long-continued  investi- 
gations, and  for  which  the  existing  theories  afforded 
no  explanation."  This  is  as  true  of  the  facts  of  the 
Bible  as  of  those  of  nature.  Now,  our  doctrine  on 
baptism  is  the  only  one  which  will  satisfactorily  ac- 
count for  the  great  fact  of  haste,  and  this  is  a  confir- 


300  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER,. 

mation  of  its  truth  and  genuineness.  This  haste  is 
explained  only  when  baptism  is,  like  circumcision,  an 
initiation  to  a  covenant,  —  a  solemn  pledge,  a  treaty 
concluded  with  the  Lord,  the  first  tie  of  the  Gospel, 
the  earliest  bond  between  God  and  the  family,  which 
precedes  justifying  faith  and  leads  to  it. 

§  138.  The  Haste  to  baptize  finds  its  Analogy 
and  its  Justification  in  the  Enlistment  of  the  Sol- 
dier by  the  Recruiter.  —  We  find  this  same  haste 
practised  by  men  in  other  circumstances,  which  ex- 
plain its  motive  and  its  object.  When  you  exert 
yourself  to  convince  a  man  that  he  should  do  this 
or  that  thing,  you  hasten  to  take  advantage  of  the 
first  moment  when  his  resistance  is  shaken,  or  when 
conviction  manifests  itself,  to  bind  him  by  a  promise, 
or  by  a  signature  placed  at  the  foot  of  a  document ; 
for  you  know  that  the  obtaining  of  his  signature  is 
a  great  point  gained.  He  is  pledged  to  a  certain 
course  by  his  signature  and  seal,  in  a  far  different 
and  stronger  manner  than  by  a  mere  verbal  assent, 
which  might  easily  be  revoked.  Again,  when  you 
seek  to  enlist  a  soldier  in  the  service  of  the  king, 
(and  Christians  are  the  soldiers  of  Christ,)  you 
speak  to  him,  you  set  before  him  the  advantages 
of  the  service  of  the  king,  and  it  is  usual,  on  the 
very  first  mark  of  assent,  to  hasten  to  enlist  him,  by 
handing  to  him  the  shilling  which  is  the  symbol  of 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   801 

his  enlistment.  He  fully  understands  that  accepting 
your  shilling  pledges  him  and  his  family,  if  he  has 
any.  After  being  solemnly  pledged,  however,  he  is 
a  soldier  only  in  perspective,  for  he  must  be  taught. 
After  his  enlistment  he  finds  himself  a  military  dis- 
ciple, and  only  later  can  he  expect,  if  he  perseveres, 
to  be  incorporated  into  a  regiment.  Thus  the  Chris- 
tian receives  first  the  pledge  of  baptism,  then  he  is 
taught ;  after  which  he  may  be  received,  if  worthy, 
as  a  member  of  this  or  that  church.  This  figure 
of  the  soldier,  which  is  strictly  Biblical,  perfectly 
unravels  to  us  the  importance  of  haste  in  conferring 
the  sign  of  the  Covenant.  This  haste  is  for  the  in- 
terest of  the  service,  for  the  interest  of  the  king, 
and  even  for  that  of  the  future  soldier,  if  the  service 
is  to  be  advantageous  to  him.  By  neglecting  to  im- 
part the  token  immediately  on  the  very  first  oppor- 
tunity, many  excellent  recruits  would  be  lost  to  the 
kingdom ;  and  although  all  who  have  undergone  the 
formality  of  enlistment  do  not  approve  themselves 
good  soldiers,  although  many  show  little  disposition 
to  be  taught  and  trained,  although  many  more  be- 
come unfaithful  and  desert,  still  it  remains  true 
that  there  is  great  advantage  in  promptly  binding 
by  a  symbol  any  one  who  feels  disposed  to  enter  the 
blessed  service  of  the  King  of  kings. 

Another  instance  of  the  same  haste  is  supplied 
us  by  the  missionaries  of  temperance  societies,  who 


302  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

preach  to  the  crowd  and  centre  all  the  efforts  of 
their  eloquence  upon  one  point,  that  of  bringing 
their  hearers  to  sign  a  pledge,  or  to  make  a  solemn 
promise  by  means  of  some  symbolical  signs,  deemed 
efficacious  to  bind  their  conscience  more  than  simple 
words.  This  token  of  pledge  it  is  considered  im- 
portant to  administer  immediately  at  the  close  of 
preaching,  and  before  the  meeting  breaks  up.  Haste 
is  made  to  bind  the  people  before  their  compunction 
has  time  to  cool  down  ;  and  this  haste  is  displayed 
by  the  preachers,  not  only  from  zeal  for  the  cause, 
but  also  in  the  well-meant  interest  of  the  hearers,  so 
as  to  fix  permanently  the  impressions  received,  and 
transform  a  conviction  more  or  less  vague  into  a 
positive  and  real  fact.  The  pledge  of  the  parent 
extends  also,  of  course,  to  his  little  ones,  who  have 
not  been  consulted,  nor  will  it  be  deemed  inappro- 
priate if  they  bear  the  same  badge  with  their  father, 
considering  they  are  all  together  enlisted  in  the 
same  cause. 

§  139.  This  Haste  to  enlist  the  Unconverted 
is  an  essential  Feature  of  Baptism,  and  forms 
just  the  Reverse  of  the  Baptist  Practice.  —  Such 
is  the  reason  why  the  Apostles  always  hastened  to 
confer  baptism  at  the  close  of  their  preaching,  and 
urged  their  hearers  to  take  that  step  before  separat- 
ing.    This  promptitude  was  for  the  good  of  souls 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   303 

and  for  the  glory  of  the  Master.  They  ever  made  it 
a  point  to  change  a  recent  and  vague  assent  to  the 
Gospel  into  a  fact  and  a  reality  which  would  bind 
their  hearers.  The  object  was  "  to  compel  them  to 
come  in,"  (Luke  xiv.  23,)  willing  or  unwilling,  to 
commit  them  to  the  cause  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  hurry 
them  by  the  bridge  of  baptism  within  the  cove- 
nanted precincts  of  the  kingdom,  to  bind  them  to 
the  discipline  of  the  Gospel,  they  and  theirs,  by  a 
solemn  and  symbolical  pledge,  which  should  be 
irrevocable.  They  must  be  urged  to  an  act  of 
adherence  to  the  Gospel,  and  must  also  be  supplied 
with  the  most  prompt  and  ready  means  of  definitely 
declaring  themselves.  They  were  first  enlisted  as 
disciples  by  baptism,  then  bound  to  the  teaching  of 
Gospel  truth  ;  then,  when  they  were  favored  with 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  had  identified 
themselves  with  Christ  by  a  living  faith,  they  were 
admitted  to  the  Holy  Supper  and  to  the  participa- 
tion of  all  the  privileges  of  the  Church. 

§  140.    The    Grace    of   Calling:    conferred    by 

Baptism.  —  The  Gospel  narrative  informs  us  that 
John  the  Baptist,  very  unlike  the  Baptists,  baptized 
first  and  then  preached  his  baptism ;  namely,  the 
doctrines  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  by  the 
Lamb  of  God,  to  those  whom  he  had  baptized. 
"  John  did  baptize  and  preach  the  baptism 


304  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

And  he  preached,  saying,  I  indeed  have  baptized 
Xpu  with  water,"  etc.  (Mark  i.  4,  7,  8.)  The 
greater  number  of  those  he  baptized  did  not  perse- 
vere, and  ultimately  drew  back,  for  there  were 
many  called,  but  few  elect,  —  few  true  disciples, 
ready  to  endure  persecution  and  to  join  the  small, 
new-born  churches.  They  had,  however,  received 
by  baptism  a  special  grace  of  calling,  which  turned 
to  the  benefit  of  several.  Thus  the  Gospel  narrates 
that  "  all  the  people  that  heard  Jesus,  and  the 
publicans,  justified  God,  being  baptized  with  the 
baptism  of  John.  But  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers 
rejected  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves, 
being  not  baptized  of  him."  (Luke  vii.  29,  30.) 
The  people  and  the  publicans  were  not  regenerated 
believers,  but  the  baptism  they  had  received  had 
done  them  good,  brought  them  one  step  nearer  the 
truth,  committed  them  to  welcome  Jesus.  They 
listened  accordingly  with  pleasure  and  profit  to  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  while  that  teaching  was  unprofit- 
able to  those  who  had  not  received  the  baptism  of 
repentance.  This  grace  of  calling  is  also  imparted 
to  little  children  through  the  baptism  that  their 
Christian  parents  secure  to  them.  It  is  a  grace  of 
the  future,  which  is  developed  and  perfected  with 
the  growth  of  the  child.  Parents  thus  place  their 
child  from  his  early  youth  in  the  position  of  one- 
called,  of  a  disciple.     They  bring  him  up  as  such, 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND   VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.      305 

train  him  in  the  practice  of  the  rules  of  the  cove- 
nant, that  is  to  say,  in  the  discipline  of  the  Gospel ; , 
then,  at  a  later  period,  explain  to  him  that  he  is 
bound  to  the  service  of  God,  having  been  conse- 
crated to  him  from  his  earliest  days.  There  is 
in  this  a  blessed  influence  and  a  precious  privi- 
lege, which  sincere  Christians  never  discard  unless 
through  ignorance,  and  because  they  have  not  suf- 
ficiently understood  the  nature  of  their  relations 
with  the  Lord. 

§  141.  Although  the  Time  most  propitious  to 
Baptism  is  before  Faith,  it  had  better  be  re- 
ceived late  than  never.  —  It  follows  from  the 
above,  that  for  an  adult  who  was  never  baptized, 
the  most  propitious  time  to  receive  baptism  is  that 
of  the  first  religious  awakening  of  his  soul.  At  a 
later  period,  and  after  he  has  obtained  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  of  water  becomes  to  him 
of  less  spiritual  value.  Yet  for  all  this  it  ought 
not  to  be  neglected,  the  external  reception  of  the 
token  of  covenant  is  always  advantageous,  as  an 
act  of  consecration  to  the  Lord,  as  an  example, 
and  because,  as  said  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  becoming 
thus  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  He  whose  baptism 
has  been  retarded  is  like  a  volunteer  who  fights  by 
the  side  of  the  other  soldiers  without  having  been 
embodied  into  a  regiment.     If  all   did   the   same, 


306  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

disorder  and  anarchy  would  soon  prevail,  The 
sooner  his  name  is  inscribed  on  the  roll,  the  sooner 
he  sets  himself  right,  the  sooner  he  submits  to  the 
form  of  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance  which  has  long 
been  in  his  heart,  the  better  for  him  and  for  the 
service.  This  remark  applies  also  to  parents,  who 
through  doubt  or  indifference  may  have  neglected 
the  baptism  of  their  children.  The  sooner  they  sub- 
mit to  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord,  the  better  it  will 
be  for  them,  for  their  families,  and  for  the  Church. 

§  142.  It  is  as  a  Sign  of  the  Future,  and  the 
Seal  of  a  Covenant,  that  Baptism  is  conferred 
hut  once.  —  Baptism  is  administered  but  once  to 
the  same  individual,  precisely  because  it  is  a  sign 
of  the  future,  the  token  of  a  pledge  taken  once  for 
all,  and  which  the  whole  life  must  realize  and  carry 
out.  This  predominant  idea  of  a  pledge  in  baptism 
explains  why  the  Apostle  said  to  the  Corinthians, 
"  Were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ? "  which 
means,  When  I  baptized  you,  did  I  pledge  you  to 
me  or  to  Christ  ?  Baptists  have  made  of  this  ordi- 
nance the  same  thing  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  a  figure 
of  the  past,  the  external  and  carnal  burial  with 
Christ  of  him  who  has  already  been  buried  spirit- 
ually with  his  Saviour.  Such  a  view  would  require 
baptism  to  be  repeated  as  often  as  the  Holy  Supper  ; 
one  should  be  baptized  every  Sabbath,  or  at  least 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   307 

every  month.  The  same  might  be  said  of  any  bap- 
tism which  is  supposed  to  convey  some  special  and 
instantaneous  grace  at  the  time  of  its  being  admin- 
istered. If  baptism  is  a  means  of  sacramental 
grace,  a  means  of  regeneration  or  of  edification  re- 
served to  the  believer,  it  should  be  often  repeated. 
God  would  certainly  not  have  placed  within  our 
reach  such  a  valuable  means  of  edification,  of  dying 
to  the  world  and  being  buried  with  Christ,  and  yet 
forbidden  us  to  use  it  more  than  once.  But  if  bap- 
tism is  the  signature  and  seal  of  a  covenant,  like 
circumcision,  then  it  is  easily  understood  why  the 
covenant  need  not  be  signed  and  sealed  over  again 
after  it  has  once  been  done. 

§  143.  In  the  Case  of  a  doubtful  Baptism,  the 
Conscience  of  the  Individual  should  decide 
whether  he  be  re-baptized  or  not.  —  As  baptism 
must  be  granted  but  once,  a  second  baptism  anni- 
hilates the  first.  By  causing  himself  to  be  re-bap- 
tized, one  professes  that  he  does  not  believe  he  had 
really  received  the  token  of  the  covenant  before, 
and  that  he  was  not  bound  to  God  by  any  formal 
pledge.  This  is  the  subjective  point  of  view,  which 
in  very  many  cases  must  decide  concerning  the  pro- 
priety of  re-baptizing  such  or  such  persons  whose 
baptism  may  be  considered  doubtful.  This  is  es- 
pecially the   case  in  conversions  from  Romanism. 


308  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

The  Reformers  have  acknowledged  the  baptism  of 
Rome  as  valid,  while  most  of  the  American  Presby- 
terians re-baptize  the  convert  from  Romanism  before 
admitting  him  to  their  churches.  From  the  objec- 
tive point  of  view,  there  is  cause  to  re-baptize,  for 
the  baptism  of  Rome  not  only  differs  from  that  of 
the  Gospel  by  many  superstitious  additions,  but  is 
also  celebrated  in  an  unknown  tongue.  It  is  not  a 
baptism  at  all  in  accordance  with  Scriptural  rules ; 
it  is  to  say  the  least  doubtful.  But  if  baptism  is 
considered  from  the  subjective  point  of  view,  which 
forms  the  essential  object  of  the  ordinance,  it  be- 
comes impracticable  to  lay  down  a  general  rule. 
In  spite  of  many  additions,  the  external  form  hav- 
ing been  followed,  with  an  honest  intention  of  in- 
itiating into  Christianity  and  consecrating  to  the 
God  of  the  Gospel,  it  only  remains  to  ascertain 
whether  the  receiver  of  that  baptism  considers  him- 
self pledged  by  it,  and  whether  his  conscience  thus 
possesses  the  essential  result  of  baptism.  It  must 
be  ascertained  also  whether  the  religious  commu- 
nity with  which  he  associates  considers  his  baptism 
valid  and  binding.  It  is  in  reference  to  this  sub- 
jective conviction  of  both  the  individual  and  the 
community  that  it  should  be  decided  whether  to 
re-baptize  him  or  not.  When  circumcision  had 
been  administered  to  the  people  of  Israel  in  times 
of  darkness,  ignorance,  and  superstition,  they  were 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND   VALUE   OF  BAPTISM.      309 

not  circumcised  again  when  there  came  a  season  of 
religious  revival  and  renewal  of  faithfulness  to  the 
covenant,  because  every  Israelite  felt  conscientiously 
bound  to  the  covenant  by  the  circumcision  received 
from  his  parents.  The  Reformers  received  no  other 
baptism  than  that  of  Rome,  and  it  was  sufficient  to 
them,  because  they  felt  bound  for  all  their  lifetime 
by  that  ceremony  of  consecration,  however  imper- 
fect it  had  been.  And,  still  later,  Evangelical  Prot- 
estants have  felt  bound  and  pledged  to  the  covenant 
by  a  baptism  which  they  received  when  children, 
and  which  is  too  often  conferred  without  all  the 
solemnity,  the  conviction,  and  the  light  desirable, 
but  yet  is  performed  with  an  honest  and  sincere 
intention  of  initiating  into  Christianity.  Indeed, 
the  most  imperfect  Protestant  baptism  will  still 
come  up  to  the  mark  supposed  to  have  been  exacted 
in  that  of  the  eunuch,  for  no  nominal  Christian 
will  hesitate  to  repeat  such  a  simple  profession  of 
faith  as  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God."     (Acts  viii.  37.) 

§  144.    "When  the  Unconverted  make  a  Sincere 
Profession  their  Children  ought  to  he  baptized. 

—  But  should  the  children  of  the  unconverted  be 
baptized,  or  only  those  of  believers  ?  Should  god- 
fathers and  godmothers  be  allowed  ?  These  ques- 
tions have  troubled  the  conscience  of  several  minis- 


310  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

ters,  and  helped  to  bring  them  over  to  the  Baptist 
view.  However,  when  the  nature  of  baptism  is 
well  understood,  the  answer  is  not  difficult.  "We 
say,  yes,  the  children  of  the  unconverted  must  be 
baptized  if  their  parents  appear  sincere  in  their  pro- 
fession of  Christianity.  We  have  no  right  to  exact 
from  them  more  than  Philip  did  from  the  eunuch. 
"  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God." 
The  question  to  us  is  not  whether  the  parents  are 
regenerated  or  not,  which  God  alone  knows.  The 
question  is :  Do  they  acknowledge  the  claims  of 
God  upon  themselves  and  their  families  ?  Notwith- 
standing their  unconverted  state,  do  they  admit  the 
truth  in  reference  to  sin  and  its  remission  through 
the  blood  of  Christ  ?  Do  they  express  an  external 
adherence  to  the  Gospel,  the  sincerity  of  which  can- 
not be  doubted  ?  If  they  only  do  this,  it  is  enough. 
The  Apostles  baptized  heathen  and  Jews,  who  gave 
no  evidence  of  having  reached  a  higher  spiritual 
degree  than  most  of  our  nominal  Protestants.  But 
the  forms  generally  used,  even  the  liturgy  of  estab- 
lished churches,  demand,  before  baptism  can  take 
place,  a  certain  profession  on  the  part  of  the  parent, 
and  some  pledge  that  the  child  will  receive  a  Chris- 
tian education.  The  moment  the  parent  consents 
and  promises,  the  minister  is  shielded  from  respon- 
sibility, and  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  will 
supply  him  with  an  excellent  opportunity  to  preach 


'; 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  BAPTISM.   311 

the  Gospel  under  peculiarly  favorable  circumstances, 
when  he  may  expect  to  secure  the  ear  even  of  indif- 
ferent parents. 

§  145.  The  Custom  of  having;  Godfathers  and 
Godmothers  is  not  opposed  to  the  Gospel,  and, 
if  well  managed,  may  offer  great  advantages ; 
but  the  Rite  of  Confirmation  impairs  the  Value 
of  Infant  Baptism.  —  The  custom  of  having  god- 
fathers and  godmothers  is  neither  mentioned  nor 
even  alluded  to  in  Scripture,  unless  Paul  acted  as 
godfather  in  circumcising  Timothy ;  nor  of  course 
is  it  forbidden.  And  yet  learned  disquisitions  have 
been  written  to  show  that  the  practice  of  sponsors 
must  be  wrong,  because  there  is  no  trace  of  them 
in  Scripture.  But  there  is  no  Apostolical  precedent 
for  churchwardens,  the  wedding  ceremony,  white 
cravats,  black  gowns,  pulpits,  organs,  spires,  and 
bells  ;  but  these  things,  not  being  forbidden  nor 
contrary  to  Scripture,  are  left  as  a  matter  of  Chris- 
tian liberty,  and  so  should  also  sponsors  be.  The 
practice  has  been  abused ;  but  there  is  nothing  to 
prevent  its  being  brought  back  to  its  original  purity. 
The  fact  is,  that  if  a  little  child  has  lost  his  parents 
previous  to  being  baptized,  it  becomes  indispensable 
that  he  should  be  brought  to  the  ordinance  by  the 
person  who  ranks  nearest  to  him,  and  assumes  to- 
wards him  the  place  of  a  parent.     This  person  is 


312  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

to  all  intent  and  purpose  a  genuine  sponsor,  and 
has  been  very  properly  called  a  godfather  or  a  god- 
mother. To  God  he  pledges  himself  to  stand  in  the 
stead  of  father  or  mother  to  the  forlorn  child.  He 
will  consider  the  latter  as  one  of  his  household,  place 
upon  him  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  engage  that 
he  shall  serve  the  Lord  and  be  brought  up  in  his 
fear.  And  not  only  death,  but  absence,  sickness, 
and  other  causes  frequently  incapacitate  the  parent 
from  pledging  his  child  to  God  in  baptism.  Thus, 
in  spite  of  all  prejudices,  sponsors  become  an  un- 
avoidable but  also  blessed  fact,  although  they  may 
not  assume  the  name.  It  is  very  natural,  however, 
that  a  parent  should  not  trust  to  chance  the  choice 
of  a  sponsor,  and  should  prefer,  while  present  and 
alive,  to  select  him,  and  thus  guard  against  all  con- 
tingency. If,  at  the  baptism  of  the  child,  some 
trusty  friend  or  relative  will  voluntarily  participate 
in  that  bond  of  covenant  with  the  Lord,  and  pledge 
himself,  in  case  of  the  parents  being  incapacitated, 
to  see  that  the  child  is  brought  up  under  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Gospel,  this  is  a  decided  religious  ad- 
vantage to  the  child,  an  important  guaranty  for  the 
family,  the  pastor,  and  the  Church.  We  must  be 
permitted  to  state  here  a  fact  within  our  personal 
experience,  which  will  illustrate  the  advantage  that 
may  be  derived  from  this  custom  when  properly 
managed. 


INNERMOST  MEANING  AND   VALUE   OF  BAPTISM.      313 

A  Protestant  father,  married  to  a  Roman  Cath- 
olic, urged  us  to  baptize  his  child.  He  was  a  very 
honest  man,  but  one  whose  unbelief  and  scepticism 
were  the  more  conspicuous  because  he  occupied  a 
high  social  position.  We  positively  declined,  and 
told  him  that  such  baptism  would  be  hypocrisy. 
The  father,  however,  felt  very  reluctant  to  call  the 
priest,  and  again  insisted.  We  then  proposed  to 
him  that  he  should  select  amongst  his  relatives 
as  godfather  a  person  whose  Evangelical  faith  was 
known  to  us,  and  that  he  should  let  the  godfather 
present  the  child.  We  exacted,  moreover,  on  the 
part  of  the  parents,  a  solemn  pledge  that  they  would 
cause  the  child  to  be  brought  up  in  the  faith  of  his 
godfather,  and  that  they  should  grant  the  latter  full 
right  and  power  to  see  to  this.  The  condition  was 
accepted.  At  the  baptism,  the  fundamental  truths 
of  the  Gospel  were  clearly  stated,  the  pledge  of  the 
covenant  given  by  the  godfather,  while  a  solemn 
yes  of  assent  and  confirmation  was  uttered  by  the 
father  and  the  mother  in  presence  of  witnesses. 
Who  will  dare  to  assert  that  a  baptism  performed 
under  such  circumstances,  with  the  resort  to  a  pious 
godfather,  was  not  an  immense  privilege  conferred 
upon  the  child,  a  religious  advantage  upon  which 
his  future  career  may  essentially  depend  ? 

The  rite  of  confirmation  adopted  by  several  Prot- 
estant churches  has  no  Scriptural  ground.  Some 
u 


314  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

Continental  Presbyterian  churches  practise  it  under 
the  inoffensive  name  of  "  ratification  of  the  vow  of 
baptism."  Nor  can  we  say  that  it  is  beneficial,  or 
even  harmless.  It  favors  the  spread  of  Baptist  no- 
tions, by  creating  a  vague  impression  in  the  minds 
of  the  people  that  infant  baptism  is  not  quite  suffi- 
cient as  a  pledge  or  token  of  covenant,  and  that  its 
validity  must  be  propped  up  afterwards  for  adults 
by  a  special  ceremony.  Confirmation  impairs  the 
value  of  infant  baptism,  and  contains  the  so-called 
"  believer's  baptism  "  in  germ. 

But  we  have  carried  these  details  on  the  relation 
of  baptism  to  the  religious  life  of  the  family  far 
enough.  We  have  only,  before  closing  our  inves- 
tigations, to  offer  some  remarks  on  the  manner  in 
which  baptism  is  related  to  church  discipline. 


CHAPTER    XV. 

BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE. 

§  146.  Slight  Differences  among  Pedohap- 
tists  in  Regard  to  the  Relation  of  Baptism  to 
Admission  to  the  Church.  —  There  is  a  difference 
of  opinion  amongst  Pedobaptists  as  to  the  right  of 
admission  into  the  Church  which  baptism  confers. 
Some  look  upon  children  as  officially  introduced 
into  the  Church  by  their  baptism,  and  when  be- 
come adults  let  them  claim  the  communion  and 
church  privileges  as  a  second  degree  of  initiation 
only,  and  not  as  a  formal  admission  into  the  body. 
Others,  not  considering  baptism  as  equivalent  to  an 
admission  into  the  Church,  but  only  as  a  prelimi- 
nary requisite,  oblige  those  previously  baptized  to 
apply  for  admission,  and  receive  them  into  mem- 
bership according  to  certain  rules  of  discipline. 
We  have  already  expressed  our  view  that  the 
practice  of  the  latter  is  more  in  accordance  with 
Scripture,  which  nowhere  considers  baptism  as  an 
admission  into  the  Church.     This  difference,  how- 


316  THE  BAPTISM  OF  WATER. 

ever,  is  of  small  importance,  and  experience  shows 
that  churches  following  the  one  or  the  other  basis 
of  admission  may  be  very  pure  and  very  Evan- 
gelical. Thus  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Congrega- 
tionalist  churches,  which  represent  the  two  opin- 
ions, are  both  generally  distinguished  for  a  fulness 
of  Christian  life  and  activity. 

§  147.  Baptist  Multitudinism  is  more  dan- 
gerous to  Piety  than  any  other.  —  Several  of  our 
brethren  in  France  and  Switzerland  have  taken  a 
great  aversion  to  the  multitudinous  baptism  which 
they  see  practised  around  them  in  the  established 
churches,  apparently  without  any  beneficial  result, 
and  they  feel  therefore  secretly  drawn  towards  Bap- 
tist principles.  We  understand  their  aversion,  and 
we  share  in  it.  Evidently,  here  is  an  abuse  which 
calls  for  correction,  for  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the 
Lord  that  baptism  should  degenerate  into  an  empty 
form.  But  we  are  equally  convinced  that  the  rem- 
edy for  the  abuse  does  not  lie  in  Anabaptism,  and 
that  to  adopt  it  would  be  going  from  bad  to  worse. 
Anabaptism,  by  undermining  the  religious  obliga- 
tions of  the  Christian  family,  will  never  edify  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  more  successfully  than  Pedo- 
baptism.  It  may  accomplish  a  beneficial  work  on 
missionary  ground,  for  Baptist  Christianity  is  after 
all  Christianity,  which  under  its  most  unfavorable 


BAPTISM  AND   ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       317 

aspect  must  bring  remission  of  sins  to  the  heathen. 
But  whenever  it  displaces  Evangelical  Pedobaptism, 
instead  of  Heathenism  or  Romanism,  it  will  prove 
a  loss  and  not  a  benefit  to  the  cause  of  Christ. 
And  yet,  unfortunately,  its  great  aim  is  to  destroy 
and  supplant  the  other  Evangelical  churches,  the 
members  of  which  are  all  placed  under  the  ban 
of  Baptist  discipline.  This  sectarian  exclusivism 
has  always  been  a  characteristic  of  most  forms  of 
error,  and  the  common  feature  of  all  narrow-minded 
sects,  from  the  Manichaeans  to  the  Mormons,  the 
Irvingites,  the  Darbyites,  &c,  &c.  While  aiming 
at  greater  purity,  Anabaptism  has  after  all  resulted 
in  a  multitudinism  of  the  worst  kind.  Families 
inherit  Baptist  ideas,  but  not  piety.  Wherever  this 
principle  has  full  sway  over  a  community,  the  indis- 
criminate baptism  of  all  adults  at  a  certain  age, 
converted  or  not,  has  become  the  fashion.  The 
multitudinous  baptism  of  supposed  believers  has 
taken  the  place  of  infant  baptism.  In  Alsace,  Ger- 
many, and  Switzerland,  numerous  Baptist  churches 
have  perpetuated  themselves  as  a  family  inherit- 
ance, after  the  complete  extinction  of  all  religious 
life,  and  in  our  days  it  has  become  necessary  to 
send  missionaries  to  preach  the  rudiments  of  the 
Gospel  to  these  formalists,  who  have  become  more 
dead  spiritually  than  the  established  churches,  which 
they  traditionally  considered  as  the  world,  while  they 


818  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

still  imagined  themselves  to  be  the  only  true  bap- 
tized believers. 

Moreover,  sectarian  enthusiasm  and  zeal  for  im- 
mersion render  one  rather  unscrupulous  in  regard 
to  admissions.  A  Baptist  agent,  in  the  pay  of  a 
Baptist  society,  understands  very  well  that  the  value 
of  his  services  is  measured  by  the  number  of  im- 
mersions performed  in  the  year.  No  concern  is 
manifested,  no  inquiries  made  as  to  where  he  en- 
lists his  candidates,  whether  from  the  world  or 
from  Evangelical  churches.  The  essential  question 
is,  how  many  people  he  has  immersed,  and  those  he 
has  immersed  he  is  held  to  have  also  converted. 
Hence,  the  notorious  fact  that  the  piety  of  a  great 
proportion  of  these  new  church-members  never  goes 
beyond  their  immersion.  They  think  themselves 
sufficiently  Christianized  by  the  great  ceremony 
they  have  undergone,  which  is  to  them  the  culmi- 
nating point  of  all  religion.  Thus,  the  statistical 
numbers  of  Baptist  churches  in  the  United  States 
are  swollen  by  nearly  a  million  of  black  slaves,  who 
lie  in  the  most  profound  ignorance,  and  who  have 
caused  themselves  to  be  immersed  from  the  natural 
impulse  of  their  sensual  nature,  and  because  of  the 
fascination  that  there  is  in  a  great  exciting  ceremo- 
ny, which  attraction  they  do  not  find  in  the  other 
Protestant  denominations.  Here  there  is  a  mul-ti- 
tudinism  more  repulsive  than  that  which  prevails  in 


BAPTISM   AND   ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.       319 

established  churches,  and  perhaps  the  very  worst  in 
existence.  The  Gospel  can  be  preached  with  some 
success  to  an  unconverted  Protestant  baptized  in 
infancy ;  but  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  a  man  im- 
mersed, but  unregenerated,  is  lost  labor ;  his  immer- 
sion is  to  him  a  passport  to  heaven.  You  will  never 
be  able  to  persuade  him  that  he  still  needs  a  change 
of  heart.  He  has  been  publicly  acknowledged  as 
a  believer,  and  has  been  with  great  display  buried 
into  the  death  of  Christ.  He  belongs  to  the  only 
faithful  church,  ranks  above  the  most  pious  non- 
immersed  Christians,  and  henceforth  his  self-right- 
eousness is  beyond  that  of  Pharisees.  He  is  a 
being  inaccessible  to  the  Gospel. 

§  148.    Baptists   aim   at   a   Medium   between 

Fanaticism  and  Incredulity.  —  Our  Baptist  friends 
must  not  conceal  from  themselves  the  fact  that  they 
extend  one  hand  to  the  most  extravagant  sects,  and 
the  other  to  the  impiety  of  the  age,  thus  finding 
themselves  the  centre  of  a  fearful  multitudinism. 
It  is  unnecessary  here  to  pass  in  review  all  the  in- 
famous sects  which,  from  the  German  Anabaptists  to 
the  American  Mormons,  have  constituted  themselves 
on  the  Baptist  principle.  Even  the  Druses,  that 
nation  of  brigands  and  assassins,  conform  to  Baptist 
practice  under  the  legal  sanction  of  the  govern- 
ment j  for,  the  Turkish  law  exempting  Christians 


320  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

from  military  service,  and  acknowledging  as  Chris- 
tians only  such  as  are  baptized,  the  Druses  as  soon 
as  they  become  adults  are  baptized  by  a  Christian 
priest  on  profession  of  faith.  Here  is  a  bad  multi- 
tudinism  on  Baptist  principle,  and  acknowledged  by 
law.  Our  Evangelical  Baptists  originated  as  a  mod- 
erate party  in  the  midst  of  a  most  repulsive  Ana- 
baptist development,  which  they  have  neither  begun 
nor  ended.  On  the  other  hand,  our  Baptist  friends 
never  argue  against  the  baptism  of  infants — never 
attempt  to  ridicule  it  and  show  its  inefficacy  —  with- 
out having  on  their  side,  the  applause  of  all  mod- 
ern infidelity.  Socinus  and  Servetus  were  already 
theirs,  and  the  latter  brings  forward  the  authority 
of  the  Sibyls  and  of  Hermes  Trismegistus  to  show 
that  the  heathen  themselves,  long  before  the  Bap- 
tists, conferred  upon  adults  alone  their  sacred  ablu- 
tions, and  that  Christians  ought  not  to  be  less 
rational  than  heathen.  All  modern  unbelievers 
ridicule  infant  baptism.  Jesuits  themselves  can- 
not help  openly  applauding  the  Baptist  doctrine, 
and  rejoicing  at  its  progress,  as  being  an  element 
of  rationalism  well  calculated  to  enervate  Protes- 
tantism. 

§  149.  The  Remedy  for  Multitudinism  does 
not  lie  in  Baptist  Antinomianism,  hut  in  the 
Preaching  of  the  Gospel. — Evangelical  Christians 


BAPTISM   AND   ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.       321 

are  very  much  mistaken  when  they  think  they  see  in 
Anabaptism  the  panacea  for  the  spiritual  evils  aris- 
ing from  multitudinous  baptism.  The  true  remedy 
lies  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  teaching 
of  truth,  and  in  faithfulness.  It  is  by  such  means 
that  Christians  must  gradually  be  led  to  understand 
the  solemnity  and  the  obligations  of  infant  baptism. 
Often  in  the  history  of  the  people  of  God  did 
circumcision  degenerate  into  a  mere  form.  Once 
there  were  but  seven  thousand  faithful  amongst 
those  multitudes  who  had  received  the  seal  of  the 
covenant.  This  multitudinous  circumcision  must 
have  been  very  revolting  to  the  religious  feelings  of 
pious  men  who  were  true  to  the  covenant.  Just  as 
now-a-days  we  have  to  preach  to  nominal  Christians 
that  their  baptism  does  not  save  them,  did  these 
men  also  teach  the  unfaithful  multitudes  that  their 
circumcision  would  not  avail  with  God,  unless  their 
hearts  were  also  circumcised.  But  for  all  this,  no 
prophet  laid  a  sacrilegious  hand  upon  the  ordinance 
of  God,  none  inveighed  against  the  circumcision  of 
infants  and  the  covenanting  of  households,  none 
sought  a  violent  remedy  for  the  unfaithfulness  of 
the  multitudes  by  administering  the  rite  according 
to  the  dictates  of  human  wisdom.  But  they  ap- 
proached their  covenanted  co-religionists  by  tell- 
ing them,  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in 
heart ! "     Let  us  preach  after  the  same  fashion  to 

14*  u 


322  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

the  unconverted  masses,  telling  them  that  their 
baptism  will  not  save  them  as  long  as  their  hearts 
are  unbaptized  with  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
but  let  us  resist  the  rationalistic  impulse  that  would 
lead  us  to  snatch  from  the  family  the  pledge  of  the 
covenant  which  God  has  mercifully  allowed  them, 
and  by  which  the  most  degenerate  Christian  nations 
of  the  day  are  after  all  infinitely  superior  to  the 
heathen.  In  the  most  hopeless  times  of  national 
unfaithfulness  the  prophets  respected  infant  circum- 
cision ;  let  us  also,  while  groaning  over  the  degen- 
eracy of  many  churches,  beware  of  increasing  the 
evils  of  apostasy  by  wantonly  suppressing  infant 
baptism. 

Pedobaptism  has  its  abuses  ;  but  there  is  no  cere- 
mony, no  religious  practice,  which  has  not.  It  will 
never  be  safe  to  conclude  from  the  abuse  of  a  privi- 
lege against  its  very  existence ;  otherwise  the  Church 
and  Christianity  itself  would  ultimately  have  to  be 
suppressed.  There  is  some  cowardice,  as  well  as 
superficiality,  in  being  so  utterly  dispirited  before 
abuses  as^to  want  to  destroy  everything,  in  order  to 
rebuild  anew  with  dangerous  novelties.  It  is  more 
according  to  the  Gospel  to  prune,  correct,  and  re- 
dress, while  retaining  the  old  foundations.  Our 
Reformers  would  never  have  succeeded  in  reaching 
the  bright  goal  of  their  arduous  undertaking,  had 
they  not  proceeded  with  their  reforms  in  a  conser- 


BAPTISM  AND   ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       323 

vative  spirit.  To  state  the  whole  truth,  there  is  at 
the  bottom  of  the  Baptist  tendency  Antinomianism 
and  a  certain  contempt  for  the  Old  Testament 
which  discloses  ignorance  and  superficiality.  The 
New  Testament,  however,  is  incomplete  and  uncer- 
tain without  its  basis,  which  is  the  Old.  All  the 
strong  declarations  of  the  Gospel  concerning  the 
binding  authority  of  Scripture  refer  exclusively  to 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  then  the  only  Scrip- 
ture. The  Lord  has  ordained  that  we  should  resort 
to  the  latter  for  our  information  on  the  sign  of  the 
covevant,  its  nature  and  its  spiritual  sense  ;  and  he 
has  condemned  to  serious  error,  to  schism  and  secta- 
rian spirit,  him  who  despises  the  old  covenant,  and 
wishes  to  isolate  himself  from  it  to  give  free  scope 
to  his  fancy  and  personal  sense.  He  who  neglects 
the  Old  Testament  lays  aside  what  is  emphatically 
the  Scripture  to  which  our  Master  has  referred  us. 
And  no  one  can  throw  himself  with  impunity  into 
such  a  practical  Antinomianism. 

§  150.  Anabaptism  lias  a  regular,  certain,  and 
perfectly  logical  Development,  which  leads  un- 
failingly to  the  most  Sectarian  Bigotry.  —  But 

we  have  not  yet  spoken  of  the  Baptist  discipline, 
which  is  a  point  of  high  importance  in  our  inves- 
tigation, as  the  fruit,  the  net  result  of  the  system 
we  oppose.     Here,  then,  is  set  before  us,  from  un- 


324  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

deniable  facts,  the  phenomenon  of  the  progress  and 
development  of  Anabaptism.  In  its  early  begin- 
nings, it  is  innocent  and  peaceful  as  a  lamb ;  this 
is  the  case  at  present  in  France  and  Switzerland, 
except  perhaps  where  Baptist  agents  are  sustained 
by  foreign  societies.  When  it  has  taken  sufficient 
root  as  a  latent  principle,  it  organizes  itself  into  an 
ecclesiastical  body,  and  begins  immediately  to  be- 
come intolerant,  but  with  moderation,  as  long  as  it 
is  weak.  This  is  the  case  in  England,  where,  being 
as  yet  but  a  small  minority,  it  is  half  tolerant,  half 
exclusive.  But  when  Anabaptism  has  obtained  a 
full  success,  when  it  is  strong  and  independent, 
when  it  has  attained  all  its  free  development,  then 
it  becomes  the  most  exclusive  of  all  the  sects.  Its 
disciples  glory  in  the  name  of  Strict  Baptists,  and 
consider  themselves  as  the  only  true  Baptists.  Such 
is  the  case  in  the  United  States  and  the  neighboring 
British  Colonies.  It  is  there  that  we  must  study 
the  discipline  and  constitution  of  Anabaptism  in  all 
their  purity ;  for  everywhere  else  it  exists  but  in 
germ,  or  is  still  in  the  way  of  progress  and  develop- 
ment, without  having  reached  its  maturity. 

American  Baptists  are  all  but  unanimous  in  re- 
fusing to  participate  in  the  Lord's  Supper  with  a 
brother  who  has  not  been  immersed,  and  moreover 
immersed  after  faith.  Still  more  will  they  refuse 
to  admit  into  the  Church  any  member  except  those 


BAPTISM   AND   ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.       325 

immersed.  The  most  questionable  convert  of  yes- 
terday, if  only  immersed,  is  welcome  to  all  church 
privileges ;  but  the  most  faithful  Christian,  even 
after  a  life  of  marked  devotedness  to  the  cause  of 
Christ,  will  be  sternly  denied  even  the  privilege 
of  sitting  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  ranked  outside 
in  a  class  with  the  heathen,  because  he  has  failed 
to  discover  immersion  in  the  Gospel.  This  close 
communionism  once  caused  a  large-hearted  Baptist, 
Robert  Hall,  to  deny  that  a  supper  laid  exclusively 
for  immersionists  could  be  the  Lord's  table.  But 
they  justify  their  exclusivism  and  their  bigotry  by 
a  course  of  reasoning  which  is  perfectly  logical. 
They  say :  "  Pedobaptist  churches  are  agreed  to 
receive  as  members,  and  to  admit  to  the  commun- 
ion, only  such  as  are  baptized.  We  do  precisely 
the  same  thing,  neither  more  nor  less.  To  us,  there 
is  no  genuine  baptism  but  that  of  the  believer,  and 
moreover  that  given  by  immersion.  Adults  who 
have  received  infant  baptism,  or  have  been  baptized 
after  faith  but  by  sprinkling,  are  not  in  our  view 
baptized  at  all ;  their  baptism  is  no  baptism.  We 
should  be  unfaithful  to  our  principles  if  we  ac- 
knowledged their  baptism  as  valid  ;  we  owe  it  to 
our  conscience  and  to  the  truth  to  exclude  them 
from  church-membership,  and  even  from  the  com- 
munion, as  being  unbaptized."  This  reasoning  is 
as  clear,  as  logical,  and  as  unanswerable  as  that  of 


326  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

the  strict  slaveholder  :  "  You  do  not  admit  to  your 
table  and  to  citizenship  your  cattle,  but  only  beings 
with  a  human  skin.  We  do  precisely  the  same 
thing.  For  it  is  our  settled  principle  that  no  man 
is  a  man  unless  he  has  a  white  skin.  To  us  your 
man  with  a  black  skiu  is  cattle.  We  should  go 
against  all  truth,  conscience,  and  principle  were 
we  to  admit  him  to  our  table  and  to  the  privileges 
of  citizenship."  Such  is  the  power  of  this  logic, 
that  neither  Baptists  nor  slaveholders  are  ever  con- 
vinced by  arguments ;  but  the  latter  are  not  fruit- 
less if  they  only  serve  to  circumscribe  the  area  of 
slavery  and  Anabaptism. 

§  151.  The  Christian  Heart  in  vain  attempts  a 
Compromise  with  Baptist  Discipline  and  Logic. 

—  The  premises  once  granted,  it  is  hopeless  to  con- 
tend against  such  logical  reasoning,  and  moderate 
Baptists  have  no  solid  ground  on  which  to  stand; 
and,  therefore,  it  is  morally  certain  that  either 
themselves  or  their  successors  will  always  eventu- 
ally become  strict  Baptists.  Rigor,  bigotry,  and 
sectarianism  are  the  unavoidable  result  of  consistent 
Baptist  principles.  Moderate  Baptists  are  in  a  false 
position ;  they  are  in  a  state  of  transition,  and  they 
endeavor  in  vain  to  arrest  and  steady  themselves 
upon  the  slippery  declivity.  The  true  Baptists  de- 
nounce them. as  lax,  pusillanimous,  and  unfaithful 


BAPTISM  AND   ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.       327 

to  the  truth,  and  exert  upon  them  a  constant  pres- 
sure, to  which,  after  a  while,  the  greater  number 
succumb.  A  few  Baptists,  painfully  aware  of  the 
strong  contrast  existing  between  their  principles 
and  the  communion  of  saints,  and  unwilling  to 
break  the  best  bonds  of  fraternal  union,  have 
thought  to  separate  admission  to  the  Lord's  table 
from  admission  to  the  Church ;  to  be  strict  for  the 
last,  and  lax  for  the  first,  and  thus  give  to  bigotry 
and  fraternity  each  its  share.  But  this  distinction 
is  without  any  foundation  in  the  Gospel ;  for  he 
who  is  a  sufficiently  good  Christian  to  participate  in 
the  highest  privilege,  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  suf- 
ficiently good  Christian  to  be  also  a  church-mem- 
ber. The  Apostles  never  knew  these  two  distinct 
admissions ;  they  are  a  recent  fiction,  the  only 
value  of  which  is  to  show  to  what  a  degree  the 
innermost  Christian  feeling  unconsciously  protests 
against  the  Baptist  practice. 

That  same  love  of  Christ  has  led  several  of  the 
most  pious  Baptists  to  protest  involuntarily  against 
their  doctrine,  by  a  ceremony  of  consecration  of 
infants,  destined  to  take  the  place  of  baptism.  That 
is  to  say,  they  have  first  taken  away  from  the  family 
the  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ ;  then  they  have  felt 
uneasy  at  having  lowered  the  children  of  the  prom- 
ise to  the  level  of  those  of  heathenism  ;  then,  in  order 
not  to  contradict  themselves,   they  invent  a  new 


328  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

ceremony,  which  they  put  in  the  place  of  baptism  ; 
and,  finally,  they  persuade  themselves  that  they  are 
very  evangelical,  when  in  reality  they  walk  in  the 
footsteps  of  Romanism  by  creating  ceremonial  novel- 
ties, and  substituting  them  for  the  ordinances  of  the 
Gospel. 

§  152.  Baptist  Zealotry  proceeds  from  an  ex- 
aggerated and  false  Importance  attributed  to 
Baptism.  —  A  ceremony  which  Jesus  Christ  never 
consented  to  practise  himself,  which  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  generally  abandoned  to  his  subordi- 
nates, and  which  the  Apostle  of  the  circumcision 
calls  a  mere  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
should  evidently  not  obtain  the  exaggerated  impor- 
tance which  Baptists  have  arbitrarily  given  to  it. 
Which  Baptist  pastor  or  agent  could  candidly  and 
cordially  say,  like  Paul,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel "  ?  Which  of 
them  would  spend  eighteen  months  in  a  city  like 
Corinth,  founding  a  church,  effecting  numerous 
conversions,  and  yet  baptizing  but  three  families  ? 
Which  of  them  could  thank  God  that  he  baptized 
none  other  ?  Which  of  them  could  attach  so  little 
importance  to  a  rite  requiring  great  preparations,  as 
not  to  be  able  to  remember  whether  or  not  he 
buried  with  Christ  this  or  that  brother  ?  Which  of 
them  could  say,  "  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  two,„ 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.       329 

and  I  baptized  also  a  third,  the  household  of  Stc- 
phanus ;  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized  any 
other  "  ?  Which  of  them  would  justify  such  care- 
lessness and  indifference  to  the  exalted  ordinance, 
by  stating  that  baptism  is  of  little  consequence,  that 
it  is  no  object  for  a  missionary  of  Christ,  "  For 
Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the 
Gospel "  ?  (1  Cor.  i.  11  - 17.)  With  what  intense 
disgust  would  the  Apostle  Paul  contemplate  all  that 
Baptist  fanaticism,  that  zeal  of  proselytism,  which 
impels  them  to  rend  asunder  other  churches,  in 
order  to  build  upon  another  man's  foundation ! 
With  what  burning  indignation  would  Peter  see  the 
■washing  of  Moses  and  John,  against  the  undue  im- 
portance of  which  he  had  warned  all  ages,  set  up  by 
a  society  of  Christians  as  an  idol,  at  the  altar  of 
which  the  unity  of  the  Church  and  the  communion 
of  saints  are  daily  sacrificed  !  It  would  be  difficult 
to  imagine  a  sadder  position  for  a  Christian  than 
that  of  a  missionary  agent,  salaried  by  a  Baptist 
society,  and  obliged  to  deserve  the  favor  of  his 
patrons  by  reports  showing  how  many  immersions 
have  been  performed  during  the  year,  and  endeav- 
oring by  clever  insinuations  to  make  recruits  for 
the  great  ceremony  amongst  the  weak  minds  of 
other  Evangelical  churches. 

§  153.    Anabaptism  is,  by  its  exclusive  Alio- 


330  THE  BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

gance,  the  petty  Rival  of  Popery.  —  Strict  Bap- 
tists have  exalted  their  peculiar  doctrine  to  the 
rank  of  fundamental  truths.  They  have  excom- 
municated all  Evangelical  Christians  but  them- 
selves. They  will  neither  let  them  participate  ir. 
the  communion  in  their  own  churches,  nor  go  and 
take  it  with  them  in  theirs.  Luther,  Calvin,  Wes- 
ley, and  all  brethren  from  Pedobaptist  churches,  are 
excommunicated  ;  there  is  not  one  of  them  worthy 
to  sit  with  Baptists  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  for  the7 
are  all  indiscriminately  disobedient  and  unfaithful 
Christians,  refusing  to  submit  to  the  positive  com- 
mand of  God  to  let  themselves  be  immersed.  Could 
the  host  of  martyrs,  who,  from  the  days  of -the 
Caesars  to  the  dragoonades  of  the  Huguenots,  have 
sealed  with  blood  their  witness  for  Christ,  rise  from 
their  tombs  and  present  themselves  at  the  Baptist 
communion-table,  they  would  be  told,  "  Stand  aside, 
you  unfaithful  and  unworthy  disciples !  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  for  us,  and  not  for  you ! "  They  would 
hear  language  addressed  to  them  that  would  grate 
on  their  ears  very  much  like  "  God,  I  thank  thee 
that  I  am  not  as  other  men."  And  such  is  the 
rigor  of  this  discipline,  that  even  a  Baptist  is  liable 
to  excommunication  for  taking  the  Lord's  Supper 
with  his  Pedobaptist  brethren. 

Thus  have  the  strict  Baptists,  the  only  true  ones, 
reached  the  maturity  of  their  principles  by  virtually 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       831 

seceding  from  Protestantism  to  return  to  the  plat- 
form of  Popery.  For  what  are  the  other  Protes- 
tant churches,  the  Lutheran,  the  Presbyterian,  the 
Methodist,  the  Congregationalist,  etc.,  but  churches 
entirely  made  up  of  excommunicated  people,  from 
the  pastor  to  the  last  member  ?  Is  an  assembly 
of  the  excommunicated  a  church  ?  Can  a  body 
of  excommunicated  clergymen  form  an  evangelical 
ministry  ?  In  a  word,  can  a  society  of  people,  not 
one  of  whom  is  worthy  to  be  received  as  a  member 
of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  one  of  whom  is 
entitled  to  the  Christian  sacrament,  compose  an 
Evangelical  church  ?  Evidently  not.  Therefore 
the  Baptist  Church  is  absolutely  the  sole  Christian 
church  in  the  world.  Virtually  there  is  no  other 
church,  no  other  evangelical  clergy.  Is  not  this 
pure  Romanism  ?  It  may  seem  incredible  that  the 
Baptists  should  really  have  inherited  the  arrogance 
of  Rome,  and  have  set  up  rival  claims  with  the  Pope. 
It  will  be  thought  that,  if  our  conclusions  are  strictly 
logical,  Baptists  at  least  do  not  make  them.  But 
let  our  friends  be  undeceived.  Of  course  there  are, 
thanks  to  God,  inconsistent  Baptists,  as  there  are 
inconsistent  Romanists,  whose  hearts  get  the  better 
of  rigid  sectarianism.  But  the  Romish  platform  is 
openly  advocated  by  the  leaders  of  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination. For  instance,  on  the  12th  of  June, 
1858,  the  Tennessee  Baptist  Association,  a  leading 


332  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

one  iii  the  United  States,  voted  to  refuse  all  pulpit 
exchanges  with  Pedobaptist  ministers  as  unbaptized 
persons.  And  in  the  same  year  a  Baptist  quarterly, 
the  Christian  Review,  said  to  be  the  highest  author- 
ity in  the  denomination,  in  a  leading  article,  un- 
churched all  Pedobaptist  churches,  declaring  that 
true  Baptists  "  should  never  admit  Pedobaptist 
societies  to  be  churches." 

Daniel  Webster,  when  remonstrating  with  the 
arrogance  of  Austria,  reminded  her  that  she  was 
but  a  speck  on  the  map  of  the  world,  and  that  her 
overbearing  conceit  was  not  in  keeping  with  her 
real  importance.  Need  our  Baptist  brethren  be 
reminded  that  they  also  are  but  a  speck  on  the  map 
of  eighteen  centuries  of  Christianity,  and  that  their 
exclusive  and  arrogant  claims  more  than  border  on 
ridicule  ? 

§  154.  The  present  Baptist  Doctrine  and 
Practice  date  back  but  two  Centuries,  and 
have  been  fomented  by  the  Jesuits.  —  But  who 

are  those  who  thus  assume  to  be  alone  the  true 
Church  ?  They  are  but  of  yesterday.  For  fifteen 
hundred  years  Christendom  ignored  their  existence 
and  their  claims ;  indeed,  we  have  already  shown  that 
Tertullian  and  other  Fathers  scarcely  held  a  single 
principle  in  regard  to  baptism  in  common  with  our 
modern  Baptists.     The  Waldenses,  those  apostolic 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       333 

witnesses,  have  always  practised  infant  baptism,  as 
is  shown  from  their  oldest  documents.  The  attempt 
has  been  made  to  trace  the  existence  of  Baptist 
principles  among  some  of  the  ephemeral  sects  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  but  unsuccessfully.  For  they  either 
rejected  baptism  altogether,  and  along  with  it  all 
sacraments,  even  marriage,  or  else  if  they  re-baptized 
people  they  meant  only  to  protest  against  Romish 
baptism,  just  as  American  Presbyterians  re-baptize 
Romanists.  Anabaptism  originated  in  Germany 
after  the  Reformation,  and  with  the  avowed  pur- 
pose of  supplanting  it.  In  this  it  fails,  but  succeeds 
effectually  in  obstructing  and  stopping  the  work 
begun  by  Luther,  and  which  would  otherwise  have 
spread  all  over  the  world.  When  triumphant,  Ana- 
baptism  plunders,  murders,  sanctions  polygamy,  and 
revels  in  debauchery,  until  exterminated  in  a  cru- 
sade undertaken  in  the  name  of  public  morality.  To 
the  timely  appearance  of  the  Baptist  principle,  three 
hundred  years  ago,  does  the  Romish  Church  owe  its 
present  existence.  Baptists  may  boast  of  having 
checked  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  and  con- 
solidated the  See  of  the  Pope  by  throwing  back  into 
his  conservative  arms  an  indignant  and  affrighted 
world.  After  a  while,  a  Catholic  priest,  Menno, 
resuscitates  Anabaptism  under  a  more  moderate 
form,  but  connects  with  it  heresies  upon  which 
modern  Baptists  are  silent.     He  ordains,  amongst 


384  THE  BAPTISM  OF   WATEE. 

other  things,  the  frequent  practice  of  the  washing 
of  the  feet  as  an  important  sacrament  of  the  Church. 
His  followers  quarrelled  together,  and  divided  into 
several  little  sects,  bearing  different  names,  and  all 
stained  with  gross  errors.  Most  of  them  have  sunk 
into  complete  infidelity  while  retaining  their  forms, 
and  thus  present  a  Baptist  multitudinism. 

It  is  not  there  that  we  must  look  for  the  parentage 
of  our  present  Baptists  ;  they  are  far  more  modern, 
and  sprang  up  in  England  about  two  centuries  ago. 
But,  while  they  repudiate  the  Anabaptists  of  Ger- 
many, they  are  scarcely  conscious  of  their  own  ori- 
gin, which  we  must  be  permitted  to  mention  here. 
Under  Cromwell,  the  Non-conformists,  being  tri- 
umphant over  both  the  Romanists  and  the  Episco- 
palians, it  was  seen  that  the  only  way  to  weaken  the 
Evangelical  churches  was  to  divide  them,  and  that 
this  must  be  done  at  any  price.  Baptist  principles 
were  beginning  to  peer  out  here  and  there,  imported 
from  Holland,  but  very  vague,  unsectarian,  and  un- 
organized. A  bishop  of  great  celebrity,  J.  Taylor, 
saw  with  his  friends  that  it  was  only  by  a  question 
of  doctrine  and  conscience  that  these  stern  Puri- 
tans, so  united  together  in  evangelical  bonds,  could 
be  divided.  It  was  evident  that  Anabaptism,  which 
had  had  the  power  to  wreck  in  part  the  Lutheran 
reformation,  was  the  best  and  strongest  expedient. 
Bishop  Taylor  accordingly  consecrated  his  leisure 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       335 

and  science  in  preparing  a  work,  since  famous, 
advocating  Baptist  principles.  He  threw  it  into 
the  midst  of  the  evangelical  churches,  and  the  bomb 
burst  with  perfect  success.  It  was  by  far  the  most 
powerful  and  convincing  work  which  had  ever 
appeared  in  behalf  of  Anabaptism.  The  discussion 
was  entered  into  by  the  Non-conformists,  and  Bap- 
tist bigotry  spread  its  venom  amongst  them.  The 
Jesuits  took  heart  again,  and  gave  all  their  support 
to  the  Baptist  opinions,  asserting  that  the  Bible 
was  Baptist,  and  that  only  by  the  authority  of  the 
Church  could  infant  baptism  be  justified.  The 
Baptist  preacher  who  was  then  the  most  zealous, 
and  obtained  immense  success,  was  Captain  Eve- 
rard,  a  Jesuit  in  disguise,  who  later  threw  off  his 
Baptist  mask.  A  Jesuit  father  on  his  travels  hav- 
ing been  arrested  and  searched,  his  trunk  was 
found  full  of  Baptist  pamphlets.  In  the  course  of 
time,  the  artifice  of  Bishop  Taylor  met  with  com- 
plete success ;  the  Puritans  were  divided,  and  suc- 
cumbed. When  the  mischief  was  done,  and  the 
Episcopalians  had  regained  their  power,  the  Bishop 
publicly  avowed  himself  the  author  of  the  popular 
Baptist  work,  and  felt  it  his  duty  himself  to  publish 
a  refutation.  But  his  Baptist  book  was  so  plausi 
ble,  so  well  written,  and  had  met  with  such  suc- 
cess, that  the  celebrated  Doctor  Hammond  thought 
it  necessary,  to  the  great  mortification  of  the  Bishop, 


336  THE  BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

to  write  also  a  learned  answer.  We  are  indebted 
for  these  interesting  details  to  an  Episcopal  source, 
Wall  (II.  15-17). 

§  155.  Why  the  Baptist  Schism  is  the  most 
suitable  Expedient  for  weakening  Evangelical 
Churches. — This  worthy  Bishop  Taylor  showed 
great  tact,  and  a  deep  knowledge  of  human  nature, 
in  understanding  that  one  of  the  best  artifices  for 
dividing  Evangelical  churches  is  to  put  forward 
Baptist  views.  Experience,  from  the  days  of  Luther, 
shows  that  there  is  no  surer,  no  more  efficacious  pro- 
cess for  creating  schisms,  acrimony,  exclusivism,  and 
anathemas  in  the  midst  of  a  religious  revival,  or  in 
the  bosom  of  Evangelical  churches  enjoying  calm 
and  peace,  than  the  arrival  of  a  Baptist  agent,  who 
comes  to  preach  his  Anabaptism  as  if  it  were  a  new 
Gospel.  The  Baptist  schism,  moreover,  has  this 
element  of  permanency  above  all  others,  that  it 
assumes  a  very  concrete  and  material  shape,  per- 
petuating itself  by  means  of  an  external  ceremony, 
—  immersion.  Doctrines  and  abstract  notions  are 
changeable,  and  may  pass  away,  but  ceremonies 
remain,  and  are  most  tenacious.  Indeed,  both 
Romanism  and  Anabaptism  owe  the  greater  part  of 
their  vitality  to  the  ceremonial  element,  which  takes 
a  strong  hold  of  weak  human  nature.  The  Bishop 
and    the   Jesuits   have,   therefore,   admirably   sue- 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       337 

ceeded,  and  their  work,  which  is  that  of  the  great 
enemy,  is  perpetuated  up  to  this  day.  Modern 
Anabaptism  owes  to  them,  in  great  part,  its  exist- 
ence, and,  transferred  to  the  fertile  soil  of  Amer- 
ica, it  has  won  astonishing  success.  But  let  it  no 
longer  be  asserted  that  this  ceremonial  delusion  is 
the  work  of  God ;  we  know  whence  it  comes,  and 
how  the  enemies  of  the  Gospel  have  promoted  it 
as  an  instrument  to  reach  their  unhallowed  ends. 

We  cannot  without  regret  and  sadness  see  re- 
spectable and  conscientious  brethren  thus  let  "  Sa- 
tan get  an  advantage  of  them,  though  they  should 
not  be  ignorant  of  his  devices,"  and  through  their 
Baptist  zealotry  allow  themselves  very  honestly  and 
unknowingly  to  become  the  tools  and  agents  of  the 
Jesuits.  This  painful  feeling  is  increased  by  the 
conviction  that  it  is  almost  hopeless  to  expect  from 
them  a  return  to  wiser  counsels.  The  experience 
of  the  Church,  in  all  ages,  teaches  that  when  a 
mind,  however  honest  and  sincere,  has  once  become 
entangled  in  the  meshes  of  some  sectarian  doctrine, 
it  scarcely  ever  extricates  itself.  To  speak  only  of 
our  own  times,  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  neither 
Mormons,  nor  Shakers,  nor  Millerites,  nor  Perfec- 
tionists, nor  Darbyites,  nor  Baptists,  nor  Irvingites, 
nor  Swedenborgians,  etc.,  are  ever  brought  back 
from  their  errors  by  any  book  written  for  them,  nor 

by  any  course  of  argument,  nor  by  any  declarations 
15  v 


338  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

of  the  Word  of  God,  nor  by  the  sight  of  the  worst 
consequences  resulting  from  their  system.  They 
are  proof  against  any  change  of  conviction,  and  die 
deploring  that  the  world  would  not  appreciate  their 
peculiar  doctrine,  which  to  them  is  emphatically 
the  truth  and  the  Gospel.  All  that  should  be  at- 
tempted when  a  conflagration  rages,  and  cannot  be 
put  out,  is  to  circumscribe  the  flames,  to  prevent 
the  destroying  element  from  spreading  to  exposed 
materials,  and  to  make  the  latter  secure  and  fire- 
proof. In  proportion  as  this  can  be  accomplished 
will  the  scourge  be  checked,  and  gradually  die  out 
for  want  of  materials  to  consume.  It  is,  there- 
fore, the  duty  of  all  Pedobaptist  ministers  to  be 
thoroughly  posted  up  on  the  leading  points  of  the 
Baptist  controversy,  and  to  impart  to  the  people 
under  their  charge  instructions  of  a  clear  and 
definite  character,  sufficient  to  make  them  proof 
against  the  proselytizing  attempts  of  their  Baptist 
brethren,  who  enjoy  the  superior  advantage  of 
having  made  the  question  a  specialty.  Unfortu- 
nately this  duty  has  been  too  much  neglected.  Min- 
isters have  entertained  too  vague  ideas  on  the 
subject,  or  have  laid  it  altogether  aside  with  con- 
tempt, as  unworthy  of  much  attention.  Hence  the 
progress  of  Baptists,  hence  these  frequent  and  dis- 
couraging desertions  of  pious  church-members,  who, 
unable  to  defend  the  cause  of  infant  baptism,  con- 


BAPTISM   AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       839 

scientiously  surrender  their  bodies,  and  with  their 
bodies  also  their  souls,  to  immersionists.  Were  it 
not  for  this  culpable  neglect  and  this  defenceless 
condition,  Baptists  would  make  but  few  or  no  re- 
cruits, and  the  day  they  cease  to  live  by  piracy 
upon  Evangelical  churches,  they  will  rapidly  dwin- 
dle away.  That  the  neglect  has  been  great,  and 
that  in  consequence  there  is  an  alarming  amount 
of  latent  Baptist  principle  among  some  Pedobaptist 
churches,  is  a  fact  that  cannot  be  denied,  and  which 
is  even  susceptible  of  statistical  proof.  Thus,  while 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  has  one 
infant  baptism  in  the  year  to  every  four  communi- 
cants, the  Methodist  Church  has  but  one  baptism  to 
twenty-one  communicants.  We  have  not  Presby- 
terian returns  of  baptisms,  but  if  Congregational- 
ism must  be  judged  from  its  last  statistical  returns, 
it  is  in  a  fair  way  of  becoming  a  nursery  for  Bap- 
tists. These  returns  show  in  Maine,  for  the  whole 
year,  but  one  infant  baptism  for  each  forty-five 
church-members  ;  in  Illinois,  one  to  fifty-eight ;  and 
in  Massachusetts,  only  one  to  sixty-two  !  These 
numbers,  if  reliable,  reveal  a  most  deplorable  state 
of  things,  which  calls  for  immediate  and  most  ear- 
nest attention  on  the  part  of  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

§  156.    The  Baptist  Babel,  with  its  Schisms  of 
Schisms,  should  serve  as  a  Warning  to  Evan- 


840  THE   BAPTISM   OF   WATER. 

gelical  Christians.  —  Fortunately  sectarianism  and 
fanaticism  carry  with  them  their  own  chastisement. 
Thus  Anabaptism,  which  promised  to  re-establish 
the  primitive  Church,  to  be  a  panacea  for  the 
scourge  of  multitudinism,  and  to  baptize  all  Chris- 
tians into  one  body,  is  after  all  nothing  but  a  house 
divided  against  itself.  Never  has  any  other  relig- 
ious community,  founded  upon  any  principle  what- 
ever, undergone  such  internal  schisms.  Among 
them  are  divisions  without  end,  and  schisms  of 
schisms.  In  Holland,  their  original  cradle,  where 
they  once  attained  great  numbers  and  correspond- 
ing influence,  they  have  divided  among  themselves, 
until,  like  impalpable  dust,  they  are  fast  disappear- 
ing and  mingling  with  other  religious  elements ;  a 
fate  which  probably  awaits  English  and  American 
Baptists,  when,  after  another  century,  they  will 
have  reached  the  present  mature  age  of  their  Dutch 
brethren.  Among  the  weak  remnants  that  still  sur- 
vive, the  following  may  be  noticed: — 1st.  The  origi- 
nal Mennonites.  2d.  The  Refined,  or  Old  Flamin- 
gians.  3d.  The  Gross  or  Fatherlanders.  4th.  The 
Apostoolers.  5th.  The  Sonnites,  whose  symbol  is 
the  sun.  6th.  The  Galenists.  7th.  The  Lammists. 
8th.  Baptist  Remonstrants.  9th.  Baptist  Collegi- 
ants.  10th.  Baptist  Unitarians.  11th.  Baptist  Ar- 
minians.  12th.  Baptist  Socinians.  13th.  The  Chris- 
tosacrums,    etc.     The    list,    although    incomplete, 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       341 

is  instructive,  and  carries  a  lesson  with  it.  A  sum- 
mary review  of  the  Baptist  schisms  of  another  single 
country,  the  United  States,  will  be  no  less  edifying. 
We  have,  —  1st.  The  Regular  Baptists  of  the  South, 
who  acknowledge  slavery  as  a  Biblical  institution. 
2d.  The  Regular  Baptists  of  the  North,  who  excom- 
municate those  of  the  South.  3d.  The  Anti-mission 
Baptists,  who  are  opposed  to  missions.  4th.  The 
Freewill  Baptists,  who  are  Arminians.  5th.  The 
Open-communion  Baptists,  who  still  keep  up  a  lin- 
gering existence,  but  are  on  the  eve  of  disappear- 
ing. 6th.  The  Six-principle  Baptists  (Heb.  vi.  13), 
who  practise  the  laying  on  of  hands.  7th.  The  Sab- 
batarian Baptists,  who  keep  Saturday,  and  work  on 
Sunday.  8th.  The  Seventh-day  Baptists,  originally 
German,  who  perform  three  immersions,  dress  as 
monks,  and  exalt  celibacy.  9th.  The  Tunkers,  — 
three  immersions,  washing  of  feet  and  long  beards. 
10th.  The  Particular  Baptists,  who  have  particular 
ideas  on  Atonement.  11th.  The  Original  Menno- 
nites,  who  have  bishops.  12th.  The  Reformed  Men- 
nonites,  whose  principle  is  non-resistance.  13th. 
The  Hooker  Mennonites,  who  make  it  a  case  of  con- 
science not  to  wear  buttons  to  their  coats,  and  who 
protest  by  their  hooks  against  all  the  other  Baptists 
as  conforming  to  the  world.  These  spiritual  Bap- 
tists have  no  less  than  five  thousand  church-mem- 
bers, and  over  a  hundred  clergymen,  all  with  hooks 

15* 


342  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

and  no  buttons.  14th.  The  Quaker  Baptists,  who 
have  borrowed  from  the  Quakers  all  their  principles, 
except  the  suppression  of  baptism.  15th.  The  Bap- 
tists calling  themselves  the  Church  of  God,  who 
excommunicate  all  who  do  not  practise  total  absti- 
nence from  wine.  16th.  The  Campbellites,  or  Dis- 
ciples of  Christ.  They  believe  that  regeneration  is 
effected  by  baptism.  Faith  alone  cannot  save,  but 
immersion  by  its  efficacy  washes  away  sins.  They 
do  not  believe  in  the  Trinity.  Their  schism  has 
had  only  thirty  years  of  existence,  yet  they  already 
reckon  about  four  hundred  thousand  members,  over 
two  thousand  churches,  and  as  many  clergymen. 
They  are  the  Baptists  of  the  future,  and  threaten 
to  swallow  up  all  the  other  Baptist  sects  by  their 
unparalleled  success.  17th.  The  Rogerenes,  who 
observe  the  seventh  day  and  have  spiritual  mar- 
riages. 18th.  The  Mormons,  the  last  Baptist  nov- 
elty, —  immersion,  prophets,  polygamy,  incest,  etc. 
Elder  Orson  Hyde  and  Prophet  Rigdon,  who  were 
once  shining  lights  in  the  Baptist  Church,  state  that 
all  consistent  Baptists  are  bound  to  become  Mor- 
mons, as  they  did.  We  might  still  mention  the 
Ironside  Baptists,  the  Baptist  Adventists,  the  Im- 
mersionist  Plymouth  Brethren,  the  Winebrennari- 
ans  of  Pennsylvania,  and  other  minor  Baptist  sects, 
which  we  pass  in  silence.  This  list  is  sufficient ;  it 
possesses  the  eloquence  of  facts.     It  disposes  very 


BAPTISM  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE.       343 

summarily  of  the  arrogant  claims  of  Baptists.  Each 
of  the  sects  we  have  just  enumerated  has  its  own 
body  and  its  separate  existence.  Nearly  all  excom- 
municate and  anathematize  each  other.  They  are 
but  of  yesterday,  and  yet,  with  their  common  ex- 
orbitant claim  of  being  each  the  only  true  Church, 
they  are  split  up  into  schisms  of  schisms. 

§  157.  The  Heaven  of  Baptists  is  a  Sad  man- 
sion. —  Arrived  at  the  close  of  our  investigation, 
let  us  cast  a  glance  beyond  the  veil,  and  depict  to 
ourselves  what  the  heaven  of  Baptists  must  be.  A 
heaven  of  the  excommunicated  !  All  the  Christians 
of  the  first  fifteen  centuries  of  the  Church  —  nearly 
all,  without  an  exception  —  excommunicated  on 
earth  and  yet  members  of  heaven !  All  the  Evan- 
gelical Christians,  since  the  Reformation,  with  the 
exception  of  the  insignificant  fraction  of  scarcely 
one  thousandth,  also  excommunicated !  The  true 
Church  lost  for  sixteen  centuries  and  found  again 
by  the  Baptists !  And  heaven  peopled  with  un- 
worthy Christians,  rebel  apostates  !  What  uneasi- 
ness, what  loathing,  will  seize  upon  the  strict  Baptist, 
the  only  true  one,  when  he  shall  draw  near  to  the 
gate  of  heaven  !  How  can  he  pass  through  it  with- 
out renouncing  his  favorite  creed !  Who  people 
heaven?  Precisely  those  whom  he  has  excommu- 
nicated here  below ;  those  whom  he  has  constantly 


344  THE   BAPTISM   OF  WATER. 

repelled,  those  with  whom  he  has  ever  declined  to 
form  one  body,  nay,  even  those  with  whom  he  would 
not  deign  to  break  the  bread  of  salvation  !  Truly, 
to  live  henceforth  with  the  excommunicated,  to 
make  one  body  with  them,  to  find  one's  self  absorbed 
in  their  overwhelming  numbers,  is  a  sad  fate ! 
From  the  Baptist  point  of  view,  heaven  is  an  apos- 
tasy, a  kingdom  of  God  overturned,  a  place  where 
the  faithful  could  find  neither  peace  nor  happiness. 

§  158.   The  Touchstone  offered  hy  Jesus  Christ 

to  simple  Christians.  —  We  close  by  a  last  argu- 
ment, more  simple,  but  also  more  powerful,  than  all 
others,  —  a  unique  argument,  by  which  many  pious 
and  excellent  brethren  have  reached  the  same  con- 
clusions as  ourselves,  probably  with  less  light,  but 
with  more  rapidity  and  equal  certainty.  They  have 
chosen  to  abide  by  the  sublime  precept  of  Jesus 
Christ, "  You  shall  know  the  tree  by  his  fruit."  They 
have  tasted  of  the  bitter  fruit  of  Anabaptism,  and  this 
has  sufficed  them.  They  have  experienced,  or  at 
least  witnessed,  its  narrow-mindedness,  its  acerbity, 
its  spirit  of  division,  its  bitter  zeal  of  proselytism,  its 
fanaticism,  its  extravagances,  its  formalism,  and  its 
Pharisaical  self-righteousness.  At  this  sad  spectacle 
they  have  stood  aghast,  and  several  of  them,  already 
carried  away  towards  Baptist  views,  have  halted, 
turned  back,  and  attached  themselves  anew,  as  it 


BAPTISM   AND  ECCLESIASTICAL   DISCIPLINE.        345 

were  by  Christian  instinct,  to  the  ancient  doctrine 
of  Evangelical  churches.  They  have  said  within 
themselves,  as  their  Master  taught  them,  that,  the 
fruits  being  corrupt,  the  tree  also  was  certainly 
corrupt ;  that  the  Baptist  principle,  however  spe- 
cious it  seemed  to  them  at  first,  absolutely  could 
not  be  the  truth.  Controversy  and  theological  re- 
searches have  been  superfluous  to  them  ;  they  have 
preferred  to  give  their  time,  their  attention,  and 
their  heart  to  what  edifies.  But  the  conclusion  on 
baptism  which  they  have  reached  is  entirely  safe 
and  perfectly  solid.  It  has  first  the  approbation  of 
Jesus  Christ,  then  that  of  experience  and  of  that 
practical  common  sense  which  the  Gospel  does  not 
disdain.  This  conviction  suffices  for  many  Chris- 
tians ;  it  might  have  sufficed  for  us,  but  it  does 
not  satisfy  all  minds,  and  therefore  we  have  writ- 
ten this  work. 

To  Him  who  baptized  not  with  water,  but  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  —  to  Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  that 
New  Covenant  of  which  baptism  is  the  sign,  —  be 
glory  for  ever  and  ever !     Amen.  . 


THE    END. 


Cambridge  :    Stereotyped  and  Printed  by  "Welch,  Bigelow,  &  Co. 


■     ' 


.  -    .   .  . 


■ 


